emaidel was right about the Hi-Fi Tuning fuses

[E-Stat]

Picked up a pair for my Sound Lab stats. I had bypassed the fuses altogether with previous Acoustats and picked up some resolution although I'm hesitant to do that with these. Sure enough, the improvement in added resolution is similar. I also purchased one for the AC line fuse in the GamuT CD-1. So far, I've only listened to vinyl so I cannot speak for that one yet.

Thanks, emaidel!

rw

[3db]

Picked up a pair for my Sound Lab stats. I had bypassed the fuses altogether with previous Acoustats and picked up some resolution although I'm hesitant to do that with these. Sure enough, the improvement in added resolution is similar. I also purchased one for the AC line fuse in the GamuT CD-1. So far, I've only listened to vinyl so I cannot speak for that one yet.

Thanks, emaidel!

rw

Placebo effect perhaps?

[emaidel]

Thanks, emaidel!



Wow! The first thing I saw when logging onto AR this morning was my own name!

You're certainly welcome. Nothing I"ve ever done to my system, for so little money, made as much difference as the Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, especially the five that are in my amp. Enjoy!

[emaidel]

Placebo effect perhaps?

Hardly.

[E-Stat]

Placebo effect perhaps?
Why do you say that? Have you ever bypassed a fuse before?

rw

[bfalls]

Placebo effect perhaps?

Cyrogenically-treated, gold-plated, placebo effect??? You must get the terminology correct.

[JohnMichael]

I replaced the stock fuse in my Onkyo A-9555 with the Hi Fi Tuning fuse. The difference was audible to me and one friend whose system was better than mine and a non audiophile friend. I guess if you have not tried it you do not speak from experience.

[bfalls]

I replaced the stock fuse in my Onkyo A-9555 with the Hi Fi Tuning fuse. The difference was audible to me and one friend whose system was better than mine and a non audiophile friend. I guess if you have not tried it you do not speak from experience.

I've never tried a "Brazilian Bikini Wax", but positive I wouldn't like it---not even a little.

What exactly do the "Tuning Fuses" tune? Do different amperage fuses tune differently? The parameters for the internal wire has to be different, so should result in a different sound. Any experience trying different values? How do you know you're getting the best sound you can? Is the effect more pronounced with your Onkyo, or Emaidel's Parasound preamp? Is the improvement more noticeable in fused speakers, sources, amps? Do you think Emaidel would notice identical changes if he listened to your Onkyo?

You could start a service for matching fuses to different brands and models. Possibly start a new forum with threads for Krell, CJ, etc... Seems a good opportunity for someone who believes in the product. Let me know when you make your first $1M. Be sure to offer a money-back guarantee.

[E-Stat]

What exactly do the "Tuning Fuses" tune?
That would be the sound quality of the component in which the fuse is used.


The parameters for the internal wire has to be different, so should result in a different sound. Any experience trying different values?
Correct. I have totally bypassed the fuse block on an older speaker with similar improvements in clarity. Any changes to the value of the fuse may affect the sound quality at the expense of compromising the safety of the device.


How do you know you're getting the best sound you can?
You know that you are not. Bypassing the fuse altogether would provide the best sound, but again compromise safety.


Is the improvement more noticeable in fused speakers, sources, amps?
The question of most noticeable would be component specific.

rw

[emaidel]

So far there are four members here at AR (including myself) who have tried the Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, and were sastisfied with the results. Stereophile also, while initially skeptical (as was I) admitted that there was a noticeable improvement with them, and have listed them as a "Recommended Component." I used them first in my speakers, and then later put five of them in my Adcom GFA-5800 amp. I felt they made a major improvement in sound in the speakers, but a much greater difference in the amp. And, I can assure you, bfalls, that this is no "placebo" effect.

So, rather than vilify and condemn those of us who praise the benefits of these fuses, and accuse us of largely imaging things, try one for yourself. Then, and only then, can you say with any sense of authority or credibility, whether or not it did anything. And no hiding behind "I won't spend $35 for a fuse" as an excuse either!

[bfalls]

That would be the sound quality of the component in which the fuse is used.


Correct. I have totally bypassed the fuse block on an older speaker with similar improvements in clarity. Any changes to the value of the fuse may affect the sound quality at the expense of compromising the safety of the device.


You know that you are not. Bypassing the fuse altogether would provide the best sound, but again compromise safety.


The question of most noticeable would be component specific.

rw

You speak in generalities. "Component specific", "similar improvements in clarity". "Component specific", implies not all components will have the same improvements (your results may vary). It's not much of a jump in reasoning to say, it's possible some will have no improvement, or could possibly sound worse? Are you ready to state all treated components will have improved clarity? You may get the same perceived results by increasing the treble.

You assume by different values that I'm asking you to increase the amperage rating. Can't the value be less without compromising safety? Possibly a 1.5A instead of a 2A. By implying only the designed value is correct is like stating a 2A power supply circuit can only be specifically "tuned" with a 2A fuse"? There's always a little "wiggle room" when engineering a design. Any good engineer wouldn't design only for normal usage. I doubt a few fractions of an amp either way would compromise safety.

I see by your profile you're a software engineer. Any thoughts of tweaking your PC/MAC? Do you feel switching fuses will improve data, increase processing speed, decrease re-sends? After all it's all data (analog and digital).

[audio amateur]

I've never tried a "Brazilian Bikini Wax", but positive I wouldn't like it---not even a little.

What exactly do the "Tuning Fuses" tune? Do different amperage fuses tune differently? The parameters for the internal wire has to be different, so should result in a different sound. Any experience trying different values? How do you know you're getting the best sound you can? Is the effect more pronounced with your Onkyo, or Emaidel's Parasound preamp? Is the improvement more noticeable in fused speakers, sources, amps? Do you think Emaidel would notice identical changes if he listened to your Onkyo?

You could start a service for matching fuses to different brands and models. Possibly start a new forum with threads for Krell, CJ, etc... Seems a good opportunity for someone who believes in the product. Let me know when you make your first $1M. Be sure to offer a money-back guarantee.
OMG I'm stunned by your boldness! But I like it!:D Rock on buddy!

(those who feel offended don't take it personnaly)

[E-Stat]

You speak in generalities. "Component specific", "similar improvements in clarity". "Component specific", implies not all components will have the same improvements (your results may vary).
Obviously, the differences will be different if we're talking about a Bose Wave Radio vs. an Audio Research REF5.


It's not much of a jump in reasoning to say, it's possible some will have no improvement...
See previous response.


Are you ready to state all treated components will have improved clarity?
Certainly not. For the third time, the level of improvement is proportional to the resolution of the device in which the fuse is used.


You may get the same perceived results by increasing the treble.
Your simplistic speculation is not supported by my experience. Improved resolution does NOT mean a brighter signal. In fact, I find that the removal of many sources of noise results in what initially sounds like a "darker" signal. Improved resolution and faithfulness to the original reveals previously masked detail.


You assume by different values that I'm asking you to increase the amperage rating. Can't the value be less without compromising safety?
The obvious answer is yes.


I doubt a few fractions of an amp either way would compromise safety.
Agreed, but find no relevance to this reasoning to the topic at hand.


I see by your profile you're a software engineer. Any thoughts of tweaking your PC/MAC? Do you feel switching fuses will improve data, increase processing speed, decrease re-sends?
You are comparing apples and kohlrabi. A valid comparison would be for an equally high resolution instrument such as a SEM.


After all it's all data (analog and digital).
With respect to digital audio data, that is most certainly NOT the case. The timing of the march of digits is vitally important to the quality of the final product. Perhaps you've never heard of jitter.

rw

[bfalls]

Obviously, the differences will be different if we're talking about a Bose Wave Radio vs. an Audio Research REF5.


See previous response.


Certainly not. For the third time, the level of improvement is proportional to the resolution of the device in which the fuse is used.


Your simplistic speculation is not supported by my experience. Improved resolution does NOT mean a brighter signal. In fact, I find that the removal of many sources of noise results in what initially sounds like a "darker" signal. Improved resolution and faithfulness to the original reveals previously masked detail.


The obvious answer is yes.


Agreed, but find no relevance to this reasoning to the topic at hand.


You are comparing apples and kohlrabi. A valid comparison would be for an equally high resolution instrument such as a SEM.


With respect to digital audio data, that is most certainly NOT the case. The timing of the march of digits is vitally important to the quality of the final product. Perhaps you've never heard of jitter.

rw

Yes, I'm more than familiar with jitter, I work with CD/DVD mastering equipment daily. I'm not only familiar with jitter, but understand the effects of reflectivity, asymmetry, PI, PO and other digital electrical measurements. How about you, are you familiar with industry standards? Understand how discs are manufactured? Familiar with DDP, ISO media formats, ISO 9660, UDF file systems, glass and wafer mastering, CATS, Datarious DVD/CD electrical measurement systems, copy-control methodology....

For seven years prior to working in digital manufacturing, I was a network administrator for one of America's largest plastic film manufacturer. I was responsible for administration of communications between 7 North American plants and 12 sales offices using T1/T3, ISDN, Frame-Relay and dial-backup security communication. I believe I'm a little familiar with data.

You were talking about tuning fuses in power supplies and the effects (clarity) heard. I come from a more finite background where "if it can be heard, it can be measured", so your feeling and perceptions don't sway me. You come from a data background, show me data. Reproduceable data. If you're going to jump on the bandwagon, at least learn to play an instrument.

[E-Stat]

Yes, I'm more than familiar with...etc.
Then your response "After all it's all data (analog and digital)" becomes more intriguing. Presumably then, you know that accurate musical reproduction of "just data" is far more complex. Are you a critical music listener? Do you have regular exposure to the sound of live unamplified music?


You were talking about tuning fuses in power supplies and the effects (clarity) heard.
You are mistaken and need to review my comments. "I have totally bypassed the fuse block on an older speaker with similar improvements in clarity. " While I purchased a power fuse for my CDP, I have not as yet used it. Thus far, I have only used them in the signal path of my speakers. I will comment on the value of the power supply application once I have done it.


I come from a more finite background where "if it can be heard, it can be measured", so your feeling and perceptions don't sway me.
Do you really believe that metrics can fully describe the performance envelope of any audio component today?


If you're going to jump on the bandwagon, at least learn to play an instrument.
That instrument is my practiced ear.

rw

[Feanor]

I've never tried a "Brazilian Bikini Wax", but positive I wouldn't like it---not even a little.

What exactly do the "Tuning Fuses" tune? Do different amperage fuses tune differently? The parameters for the internal wire has to be different, so should result in a different sound. Any experience trying different values? How do you know you're getting the best sound you can? Is the effect more pronounced with your Onkyo, or Emaidel's Parasound preamp? Is the improvement more noticeable in fused speakers, sources, amps? Do you think Emaidel would notice identical changes if he listened to your Onkyo?

...

Just for emphasis, let me point out that fuses can be used in four different locations in any given component:

Before the power supply, that is, on the incoming AC line;
Downstream of the power supply but ahead of the signal processing circuits
In the signal processing ciruits but not in the direct signal path, that is, in a parallel path that "tunes" the direct path, (although you seldom or never see fuses use this way, capacitors, resistors, coils, etc., are routinely used in these circuits)
In the direct signal path.The plausibility of improvement from a better fuse increases as you go from 1 to 5.

I use Hifi Tuning fuse ahead the tweeters of my Magneplanar speakers, that is, in the direct signal path, and I think I hear a small improvement. (I liken this improvement to wiping a fine layer of dust from the front of you TV screen.)

[E-Stat]

I use Hifi Tuning fuse ahead the tweeters of my Magneplanar speakers, that is, in the direct signal path, and I think I hear a small improvement. (I liken this improvement to wiping a fine layer of dust from the front of you TV screen.)
Exactly. One of the many reasons why Wilson Audio speakers are expensive is they use small precision metal film resistors in lieu of fuses in the signal path for protection.

rw

[3db]

This fuse arguement (discussion and lets keep it friendly) reminds me of the old cable/interconnect debate thats been going on since like forever. The way I see it...a fuse is a simply a srtip of metal that is used to conduct current. If an attempt is made to conduct more current than the fuse is rated for, the metal strip over heats and melts causing an open circuit. Unless extremely reactive (i.e. inductive or capacitve which I can't see being) there is no way it will alter the signal going through it. If I were to replace my fuses, I would only do so if I had ready access to a DBT test. This way, my ears won't be prejudiced by preconceived ideas. When it comes to conductors and propogation of a signal through a conductor, , I trust science way more than my ears.

[3db]

Exactly. One of the many reasons why Wilson Audio speakers are expensive is they use small precision metal film resistors in lieu of fuses in the signal path for protection.

rw

As long as the metal film resistor is not part of teh crossoer circuit, I cannot understand how this would maek any difference in the quaity of sound.

[E-Stat]

Unless extremely reactive (i.e. inductive or capacitve which I can't see being) there is no way it will alter the signal going through it.
I just love the confidence of experience-free theory!

rw

[E-Stat]

As long as the metal film resistor is not part of teh crossoer circuit, I cannot understand how this would maek any difference in the quaity of sound.
It is and I'm not surprised.

rw

[3db]

I just love the confidence of experience-free theory!

rw

I know the feeling.. so did you verify your result swith a DBT test? Man was put on the moon through the application of theory, not snake oil. And all theory dictates that a strip of metal of the length found in a use in a vacum can not impart any kind of sonic signature.

[3db]

It is and I'm not surprised.

rw

Since when is a fuse used in a crossover? The metal film was used in the crossover because of its tighter tolerance of resistance. Its resistance in combination with the other components in the crossover is what defines a crossover...not some piece of metal with almost zereo resistance that burns on the application of too much current. Your logic is flawed with this arguement.

[emaidel]

I have never been a proponent of the "if it exists, then it can be measured," or conversely, " if it cannot be measured, then it doesn't exist" mentality. How then would one measure the specific placement of instruments within a stereo image, or the breadth and depth of the soundstage? There's no denying that such a thing as a stereo image exists, and that some equipment is better than others in producing it, yet there's no way at all to effectively measure why one speaker/amplifier/etc. is better than another in reprodcing it. Nor is there a way to measure the soundstage either, yet there are enormous differences in both the width and depth of a soundstage, again depending on many of the different components within a system.

If someone here (myself, or others) claims to hear something as a result of changing a piece of equipment, or even a fuse, why can't someone who has NOT heard what we have, nor has done what we've done, simply accept such, and leave it be at that? I know what I hear, and having anyone telling me that I'm really not hearing what I know I'm hearing is rather pointless, no? What is to be gained by such an endeavor?

[E-Stat]

I know the feeling.. so did you verify your result swith a DBT test?
Apparently, you do not know what a DBT is or you wouldn't have asked that question. Hint: it is impossible unless you introduce spurious black boxes into the equation with contacts that would completely mask the results. Great idea! My conclusions are based upon experience, not arm chair speculation.


Man was put on the moon through the application of theory, not snake oil.
No scientific endeavor relies upon theory alone. Thank heavens! It requires experimentation and validation. Theory alone fails to acknowledge one or more relevant factors later discovered. Do you remember what the original theory was for the ideal atmosphere inside the Apollo capsules?


And all theory dictates that a strip of metal of the length found in a use in a vacum can not impart any kind of sonic signature.
I'll ask the question again and see if you will respond this time. Have you ever bypassed a fuse before and listened to the difference? Or conversely, added another fuse to the signal path?

rw

[E-Stat]

Since when is a fuse used in a crossover?
You completely missed the point. Given that crossovers use resistors, Wilson uses low wattage ones that serve a dual purpose and eliminate the need for conventional fuses. Do you understand?


Your logic is flawed with this arguement.
Only to those who cannot see the big picture. The same is true for those with similar myopia who claim that power cords couldn't possibly affect the results after miles and miles of wire! :)

rw

btw: You need a spellchecker.

[3db]

You completely missed the point. Given that crossovers use resistors, Wilson uses low wattage ones that serve a dual purpose and eliminate the need for conventional fuses. Do you understand?


Only to those who cannot see the big picture. The same is true for those with similar myopia who claim that power cords couldn't possibly affect the results after miles and miles of wire! :)

rw

btw: You need a spellchecker.

spellchecker or better typing skills :)

My point on the rsistors in the crossover is that its formost function is of the tighter tolerance of the resistance. That it can behave as a fuse is a side benefit . I'm guessing that Wilson wanted to knock the component count down and saw an opprtunity to do it with the resistor which was already designed into the crossover.

[E-Stat]

I'm guessing that Wilson wanted to knock the component count down and saw an opprtunity to do it with the resistor which was already designed into the crossover.
And your guess would be wrong. I have already stated the reason. Hint: it was not to make the product cheaper via reduced part count. I see you continue to duck my question about your direct experience in this matter. The silence speaks for itself.

rw

[3db]

And your guess would be wrong. I have already stated the reason. Hint: it was not to make the product cheaper via reduced part count. I see you continue to duck my question about your direct experience in this matter. The silence speaks for itself.

rw


I already answered your question....I won't take part in a fuse upgrade unless subjected to a DBT test whihc prooves to me that its worth the money. I don't wnat subjective influence ( i don't necessaitly mean hearing only) sway my decision.

And as I told you, the resistor is used mainly for the tighter tolerance of the resistor and not because its a better sounding fuse.

[E-Stat]

I already answered your question....I won't take part in a fuse upgrade unless subjected to a DBT test whihc prooves to me that its worth the money.
Please describe your proposed DBT methodology with fuses.


And as I told you, the resistor is used mainly for the tighter tolerance of the resistor and not because its a better sounding fuse.
[shaking head in disbelief] Like I said, you completely miss the big picture. Stating the obvious benefits of RN60 resistors has nothing to do with the underlying advantage to using this approach.

rw

[JohnMichael]

The fuse was only $30. I thought I would have that much fun trying a new tweak. If I waited for everything in life to be tested first I would have missed out on a lot. $30 is a bottle of wine.

[bfalls]

Apparently, you do not know what a DBT is or you wouldn't have asked that question. Hint: it is impossible unless you introduce spurious black boxes into the equation with contacts that would completely mask the results. Great idea! My conclusions are based upon experience, not arm chair speculation.


No scientific endeavor relies upon theory alone. Thank heavens! It requires experimentation and validation. Theory alone fails to acknowledge one or more relevant factors later discovered. Do you remember what the original theory was for the ideal atmosphere inside the Apollo capsules?


I'll ask the question again and see if you will respond this time. Have you ever bypassed a fuse before and listened to the difference? Or conversely, added another fuse to the signal path?

rw

If the results are so easily negated by the introduction of contacts in a "spurious black box" the difference must be very small. What about the contact areas on the AC plug (both ends), power switch, mechanical source switch, speaker protection relay, speaker selection switch? I'm surprised anyone gets good sound out of their systems at all. Too much contact area. Just think of the improvements to be had by engineering these parts cryogenically.

On the same note, what about changes in temperature. Are your listening sessions temperature-consistent? You do understand the relationship between electronic parts and temperature coefficients, right?

What about air pressure/moisture content? All have their different effects on sound. Are your ears really that discerning? Are they cryogenically-treated? Call it arm-chair speculation, if you like. I think what you're hearing is "arm-chair hallucination".

[bfalls]

You completely missed the point. Given that crossovers use resistors, Wilson uses low wattage ones that serve a dual purpose and eliminate the need for conventional fuses. Do you understand?


Only to those who cannot see the big picture. The same is true for those with similar myopia who claim that power cords couldn't possibly affect the results after miles and miles of wire! :)

rw

btw: You need a spellchecker.

I understand what you're saying. This means the resistor is being used to set the power limit of the tweeter. Should you exceed the limit, no more resistor. To be prudent, the resistor would need to be running close to it's limit to be effective. Part of a fuse's value is the speed at which it opens when it's limit is exceeded. I don't think it would be as quick with metal foil as with a strand of wire. I hope the owner has a schematic. Most failed resistors I've seem are difficult to read the color-code from. More likely, the owner has to send the speaker in for repair. Let's see, what would shipping and repair run for a Wilson WATT system? Now that's engineering!

Power cords. Another thread, another time.

[E-Stat]

If the results are so easily negated by the introduction of contacts in a "spurious black box" the difference must be very small.
The measured voltages of ppp passages is indeed small.


What about the contact areas on the AC plug (both ends), power switch, mechanical source switch, speaker protection relay, speaker selection switch? I'm surprised anyone gets good sound out of their systems at all.
You keep switching the topic from in-signal to AC, but I'll change tracks. They all matter. Ideally, one's amp would be soldered directly to the AC line. Hospital grade outlets and higher quality plugs do provide greater contact area and tension.


On the same note, what about changes in temperature. Are your listening sessions temperature-consistent? You do understand the relationship between electronic parts and temperature coefficients, right?
I am very sensitive to temperature and humidity differences because my stats require different bias settings for those differences. During a two hour listening session, however, there is little change to either. Fuses undergo thermal changes as well.


I think what you're hearing is "arm-chair hallucination".
When the first solid state amps started appearing in the 60s, they were dreadful sounding, but all the measurements (known at the time) looked good. Those with discerning hearing didn't ignore their senses until the engineers figured out the issues. When the first digital players started appearing in the 80s, they were dreadful sounding, but all the measurements (known at the time) looked good. Those with discerning hearing didn't ignore their senses until the engineers figured out the issues. Feel free to wait twenty years before you can enjoy these kinds of improvements. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

To be prudent, the resistor would need to be running close to it's limit to be effective.
Yes. They are mounted on a heat sink.


More likely, the owner has to send the speaker in for repair. Let's see, what would shipping and repair run for a Wilson WATT system? Now that's engineering!
Is that what you would do? Brilliant! That's the problem with all your speculations because it illustrates the obvious limitations of in-the-box thinking. Fortunately, engineers behind such fine products are far smarter. There is a user-accessible panel in the rear.

rw

[audio amateur]

The fuse was only $30. I thought I would have that much fun trying a new tweak. If I waited for everything in life to be tested first I would have missed out on a lot. $30 is a bottle of wine.
You must be an uber wine snob to pay that much!:yikes:

[Feanor]

Apparently, you do not know what a DBT is or you wouldn't have asked that question. Hint: it is impossible unless you introduce spurious black boxes into the equation with contacts that would completely mask the results. Great idea! My conclusions are based upon experience, not arm chair speculation.
...
rw

Not necessarily 'black boxes'. To be a valid DBT it is sufficient that the person who switchs the leads and records which component is used in which trial, be out contact with the test subjects (evaluators) thoughout the experiment.

[JohnMichael]

You must be an uber wine snob to pay that much!:yikes:


It has been a long time since you have posted anything useful.

[E-Stat]

Not necessarily 'black boxes'. To be a valid DBT it is sufficient that the person who switchs the leads and records which component is used in which trial, be out contact with the test subjects (evaluators) thoughout the experiment.
Actually, that would not be a double blind test. You describe a single blind test. One of the participants will certainly know the active choice.

rw

[Feanor]

Actually, that would not be a double blind test. You describe a single blind test. One of the participants will certainly know the active choice.

rw

I strongly disagree. I said the person changing & recording the setup is not in contact with test subjects during the experiment. In effect that person is a black box -- it is not necessary that the "black box" be an non-human device.

[E-Stat]

I strongly disagree.
Look up any reference and you will find that you are mistaken.

"A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group."

That is why it is called "double blind". Both parties are blinded. Which is why guys like Arny Krueger use black boxes (for which the effects of them on the test are never established). In medical trials, the adminstrators are given physically identical pills and don't know which is the placebo. Which brings up another difference between *real* medical DBTs and audio DBTs. With medical trials, "training" has no effect. Especially when the results are derived based upon physiological testing. With audio trials, however, the ability of one to discern differences most certainly benefits from training.

rw

[Feanor]

Look up any reference and you will find that you are mistaken.

"A double blind test is a scientific test in which neither test subjects nor administrators know who is in the control group and who is in the experimental group."

That is why it is called "double blind". Both parties are blinded. Which is why guys like Arny Krueger use black boxes (for which the effects of them on the test are never established).

rw

I accept the definition although it pertains to experiments (e.g. medical), where there are both experimental and control groups. Maybe you could explain what a "control group" would consist of in case of audio experiment, e.g. an ABX test.

In practical terms, in the audio instance, it is sufficient that the test subjects have no external clue which component they are listening to when asked to decide whether it's A or B (or C) they are hearing. Having the guy who swapped the cables in the room, (smiling and nodding), during the listening could certainly constitute a clue, however if, as I say, he has no contact with the test subjects then he is merely an anthropomorhic black box.

Really, the bigger problem for the audio test is establishing the statistical limits that would preclude random guessing as the cause of the result. This requires some minium number of participants and trials.

[E-Stat]

In practical terms, in the audio instance, it is sufficient that the test subjects have no external clue which component they are listening to when asked to decide whether it's A or B (or C) they are hearing.
While I don't disagree, that is fundamentally a single blind test. I have used my college professor wife to proctor SBTs. My old listening room had two doors and I always left the room first, she entered through the other door, made a change, left the room and I returned to what was again an empty room to eliminate inadvertent cueing.

rw

[Feanor]

While I don't disagree, that is fundamentally a single blind test. I have used my college professor wife to proctor SBTs. My old listening room had two doors and I always left the room first, she entered through the other door, made a change, left the room and I returned to what was again an empty room to eliminate inadvertent cueing.

rw

The original question, as I saw it, was whether you can have an objective audio test without resorting to some sort of electro/mechanical "black box" device. In practical terms you can. My wife is not a college professor, but like yours presumably, she wouldn't give a good gawd damn whether or not one component sounded different from another.

Fine, so tests like you yourself describe don't technically fit the definition of DBT because -- I suppose -- they don't absolutely quarantee administrator neutrality. But they are sufficiently objective because the "administrator" can't influence the results short of lying about which component was which after the results are tallied, and what would be the motive?

[E-Stat]

The original question, as I saw it, was whether you can have an objective audio test without resorting to some sort of electro/mechanical "black box" device.
I am responding to 3db's claim that only DBTs can be valuable aids for assessing audible differences with audio gear. While he has not responded yet to my question, I suspect he really does not understand what a DBT entails and the series of unsupported assumptions presumed by ALL audio based DBTs that involve discrete components and not just computer generated content.

rw

[emaidel]

$30 is a bottle of wine.


I too have paid $30, and often, a good deal more, for a good bottle of wine. Now that I'm retired and on a fixed income, paying over $100 per bottle is a fading memory, but when that memory was alive, I discovered some truly wonderful wines to be savored on special occasions. Grand Marnier at $40 per bottle is nice, but Grand Marnier Centennaire at $140 a bottle is a lot nicer!

The first Hi-Fi tuning fuses I bought cost $40 each, and the more recent purchases were at $35 each (it seems that the fuses are "on sale" everywhere right now). A lot of money for a fuse, but a drop in the bucket for the improvements they made.

[audio amateur]

I too have paid $30, and often, a good deal more, for a good bottle of wine. Now that I'm retired and on a fixed income, paying over $100 per bottle is a fading memory, but when that memory was alive, I discovered some truly wonderful wines to be savored on special occasions. Grand Marnier at $40 per bottle is nice, but Grand Marnier Centennaire at $140 a bottle is a lot nicer!
I don't know if you guys have super expensive tastes in wine or perhaps wine is very expensive in the US (which shouldn't necessarily be as it is made over there too).
In France you can get a decent bottle of wine for 7 euros (that would be about 9 bucks) and a very good one for 15 (19 bucks). But then this is France...

[emaidel]

I don't know if you guys have super expensive tastes in wine or perhaps wine is very expensive in the US (which shouldn't necessarily be as it is made over there too).
In France you can get a decent bottle of wine for 7 euros (that would be about 9 bucks) and a very good one for 15 (19 bucks). But then this is France...

Wine, like anything else, comes in many, many varieties, styles and qualities. We can purchase wine here for about $9 a bottle, but it usually isn't particuarly good. Every once in a while a "bargain-priced" wine is exceptional, but once the word gets out, the price skyrockets. This happened about 15 years ago with a Cabernet Sauvignon from The Hess Collection that sold for $11 a bottle, and was rated "Wine of the Year" by The Wine Spectator. Almost within minutes, there wasn't any available, and the few places that had some left charged a good deal more than $11.

Decent Frrench wines here in the U.S. usually cost considerably more than $30 per bottle, with many selling for several hundred dollars a bottle. For those who can afford to spend that much (which excludes me), there is much to savor and enjoy.

The best wine I can remember tasting was the 1996 vintage of Opus One from California. The initial selling price for a bottle was $100, which climbed from there once the word got out that that particular vintage was as good as it was. A bottle of '96 Opus One in a restaurant was about $150 to $200, and well worth it.

On the other hand, a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon from Columbia Crest, from Washington State, which sells for a good deal less than $20 is pretty remarkable too.

To those of us who really love wine, paying a lot of money for a single bottle is oftten well worth it. We don't just gulp the stuff down, but savor every nuance there is to be savored, and drink such wines only on special occasions. The same can be said for Dom Perignon champagne: it's pricey stuff, but still some of the best champagne in the world.

Audio equpment isn't much different: while most of us can't afford Krell or Mark Levinson equipment, I doubt we wouldn't hear what it is that makes those products cost as much as they do. My "Columbia Crest-equivalent" to audio gear is Parasound and Adcom, but the Krell and Levinson compares with Opus One and the like.

Lastly, a friend sent me a 1964 bottle of Chateau Lafite Rotschild Pauillac (which retailed at the time for well over $400 a bottle). I was stunned that this person would send me such an expensive bottle of wine, and I made certain that my wife and I drank it on a truly special occasion. The result? It was nice, but only that - nothing particuarly special, and certainly not worth anywhere near $400.

[audio amateur]

We don't just gulp the stuff down,
I am no expecting you to. You are talking here to someone who has grown up in France, a.k.a bread cheese and wine country. Where I currently live (when I am not studying), a village of about 3000 inhabitants, we have a cheese grocer, a wine 'caveau' and not one but two bakeries.

If you mostly drink wine on special occasions, then I understand a little better.
There seems to be wine at the table most days in my home, and at 30$ a bottle, that would add up quickly:yesnod:

[emaidel]

.
There seems to be wine at the table most days in my home, and at 30$ a bottle, that would add up quickly:yesnod:


I guess it would! My wife and I drink wine more than on only special occasions, but don't drink it every day. Perhaps we should, but if we did, we'd certainly pay a helluva lot less than $30 for each bottle!

And, I Googled "1964 Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauilllac" and discovered the average selling price for it in the U.S. today is a whopping $562!!

Let's see now: this thread was originally about the Hi-Fi Tuning fuses, then moved onto a discussion/argument about double-blind listening tests, crossover networks and now the price of wine. Where shall we take it next? The mating habits of horses perhaps?

[Luvin Da Blues]

And, I Googled "1964 Chateau Lafite Rothschild Pauilllac" and discovered the average selling price for it in the U.S. today is a whopping $562!!

That $562 could buy a few "fuses". I have never heard the virtues of these "Golden " fuses but with the endorsements from respectable (no bulsh!t) AR members here and in magazines I think that there must be something to it.

My theory is that the fuse link in a standard fuse is a different material from the conductor. This link is designed get 'softer" with the more current that flows thru it. This has to affect the signal passing thru it. Could be that these fuses use a material that remains stable up to the fuses rating?

[E-Stat]

Could be that these fuses use a material that remains stable up to the fuses rating?
For one thing, the conductor is made of silver.

rw

[audio amateur]

Seeing as the fuse is in the direct signal path (in E-Stats situation), the case of a change in sound is already more plausible.

[3db]

I am responding to 3db's claim that only DBTs can be valuable aids for assessing audible differences with audio gear. While he has not responded yet to my question, I suspect he really does not understand what a DBT entails and the series of unsupported assumptions presumed by ALL audio based DBTs that involve discrete components and not just computer generated content.

rw

I was away celebrating my mom's 80th birthday. My DBT if you will would consist of a person switching back and forth from speakers that thave teh fuse to speakers without the fuse. The listener would not be given any prior knowledge to which setup contains teh fuse and which one doesn't. I don't give a rats ass either wether the person swithcing back and forth knows the seup or not. It plays no outcome to the listener. What I'm testing for is the listners outrageous claim that a fuse imparts a sonic signature. If you understood electrical principles, you would see my point.Continue to hang on to your limp subjective and scientifically unprovable claim that you can hear a difference. At least I'm willing to go up to bat and go through a controlled blinded listening test. I'm willing to be proved wrong. But you on the other hand like every other person who make unsubstantiated claims rather present arguements against a valid test..In other words, scared of being proven wrong.

[emaidel]

the listners outrageous claim that a fuse imparts a sonic signature. If you understood electrical principles, you would see my point.Continue to hang on to your limp subjective and scientifically unprovable claim that you can hear a difference. At least I'm willing to go up to bat and go through a controlled blinded listening test. I'm willing to be proved wrong. But you on the other hand like every other person who make unsubstantiated claims rather present arguements against a valid test..In other words, scared of being proven wrong.

You, sir, are way out of line here. I have heard a differencee with the use of these fuses, and so has everyone who has heard my system since I installed them. So too have the editors of Stereophile who list them as a "Recommended Component." Do you think they're nuts too?

I'd be happy to partake in a DBT (which I do often in wine tastings, and with very interesting results), but I certainly dont need one to "substantiate" that which I know I'm hearing. In years past, when I replaced one good phono cartridge with a better one, and heard big differences between the two, both often measured quite similarly, so measurements don't necessarily reveal everything inherent in something affecting reproduced sound.

You continually refuse to accept the statements from those of us who've used the fuses - and heard a difference - as anything other than "limp, subjective and scientifically unprovable" rather than just allowing us to try to inform others of the benefits of these fuses. In the end, it's your loss and not ours. You can continue to live with your myopic views on what does, or doesn't, work to improve the sound of an audio system. The rest of us will continue to enjoy whatever little tweaks we can do to improve the sound of ours.

[JohnMichael]

You, sir, are way out of line here. I have heard a differencee with the use of these fuses, and so has everyone who has heard my system since I installed them. So too have the editors of Stereophile who list them as a "Recommended Component." Do you think they're nuts too?

I'd be happy to partake in a DBT (which I do often in wine tastings, and with very interesting results), but I certainly dont need one to "substantiate" that which I know I'm hearing. In years past, when I replaced one good phono cartridge with a better one, and heard big differences between the two, both often measured quite similarly, so measurements don't necessarily reveal everything inherent in something affecting reproduced sound.

You continually refuse to accept the statements from those of us who've used the fuses - and heard a difference - as anything other than "limp, subjective and scientifically unprovable" rather than just allowing us to try to inform others of the benefits of these fuses. In the end, it's your loss and not ours. You can continue to live with your myopic views on what does, or doesn't, work to improve the sound of an audio system. The rest of us will continue to enjoy whatever little tweaks we can do to improve the sound of ours.



Well said and that was all I was doing was sharing the results of an inexpensive tweak.

[E-Stat]

My DBT if you will would consist of a person switching back and forth from speakers that thave teh fuse to speakers without the fuse.
Interesting take. First, you would need to carefully match the two pair of speakers because there will necessarily be variations even before another variable is introduced with fuses. Such would never work for me given a) the expense of two sets of SL U-1s and b) the fact that, given their size, 400 lbs of speakers would have to be moved in and out for each and every trial not to mention paying careful attention to duplicating placement.


I don't give a rats ass either wether the person swithcing back and forth knows the seup or not.
I agree, but that is necessarily NOT a double blind test. The administrator doing the switching would have to be blinded. Such is a single blind test.


If you understood electrical principles, you would see my point.
Tell us the ironclad and proven theory behind your speculation.


But you on the other hand like every other person who make unsubstantiated claims rather present arguements (sic) against a valid test.
It is truly difficult to conduct a DBT when one such as you doesn't even know what it is exactly. I have pointed out the practical limitations in my case.


I'm willing to be proved wrong.
How can you be proven wrong when you've already made up your decision - even before ever trying it out? Your result will be self-fulfilling!


.In other words, scared of being proven wrong.
:)

rw

[Feanor]

...
It is truly difficult to conduct a DBT when one such as you doesn't even know what it is exactly. I have pointed out the practical limitations in my case.
...

rw

And I was quilty too of the careless use of "DBT". However, E-Stat, as you & I discussed, the particular distinction between "single" and "double" blind in this case, preventing administrator bias, is insignificant in case of relatively simple audio testing. I feel you are beating 3LB a bit too hard on the DBT definition aspect.

I've said I thought I heard a dfference using Hifi Tuning fuse a direct signal path, specifcally a tweeter fuse. However I'm not sure I could pass an SBT -- or DBT; in fact I did't even do a non-blind A-B series. I just stuck them in , thought I heard a very small improvement, and left them there.

[E-Stat]

The rest of us will continue to enjoy whatever little tweaks we can do to improve the sound of ours.
Indeed. With the wife traveling, I spent a lot of time listening to the main system this weekend and put the other new fuse in the GamuT CD-1. While I listened to a range of material from Bach to Madonna, there is new level of detail to be found. Even with Madonna, there was more clarity to the rhythmic background and her voice articulation on Hard Candy. You are suddenly aware of small details that you had never before heard. Just like every time I've played familiar material on a reviewer friend's spectacular reference system. I'll mention this to him.

Thanks again. :)

rw

[3db]

Interesting take. First, you would need to carefully match the two pair of speakers because there will necessarily be variations even before another variable is introduced with fuses. Such would never work for me given a) the expense of two sets of SL U-1s and b) the fact that, given their size, 400 lbs of speakers would have to be moved in and out for each and every trial not to mention paying careful attention to duplicating placement.


I agree, but that is necessarily NOT a double blind test. The administrator doing the switching would have to be blinded. Such is a single blind test.


Tell us the ironclad and proven theory behind your speculation.


It is truly difficult to conduct a DBT when one such as you doesn't even know what it is exactly. I have pointed out the practical limitations in my case.


How can you be proven wrong when you've already made up your decision - even before ever trying it out? Your result will be self-fulfilling!


:)

rw

I can understand the problem with doing tests with your speakers unless the fusing could be rigged just to switch in out the fuse instead of moving speakers around to switch fuses.

The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. I can TOTALLY understand how one cartridge could sound better/worse/different than another simply because there' s a electrical-mechanical interface there based on geometries of movement, variances of the coils between channels, etc. But in electrical conduction through a metal, its just supply potential enough to cause current flow and it requires very little potential for that too happen.

As far as my attending a SBT.. I can see your point. being very skeptical...but if I did hear the difference I would fess up..

[emaidel]

.

Thanks again. :)

rw


And, again, you're welcome! And there's more to come!

[3db]

You, sir, are way out of line here. I have heard a differencee with the use of these fuses, and so has everyone who has heard my system since I installed them. So too have the editors of Stereophile who list them as a "Recommended Component." Do you think they're nuts too?.

I never said nuts. I just happen to think that listening with eyes open is far less accurate then to listen with eyes closed. The mind has a way of fooling everyone. And yes, I don't put much stock into Stereophile's "heard the difference" if its not accompanied by specifications indicating why. Its a subjective sales job.


I'd be happy to partake in a DBT (which I do often in wine tastings, and with very interesting results), but I certainly dont need one to "substantiate" that which I know I'm hearing. In years past, when I replaced one good phono cartridge with a better one, and heard big differences between the two, both often measured quite similarly, so measurements don't necessarily reveal everything inherent in something affecting reproduced sound.

Off course you won't. You join the rank and file of everyone else who claims they can the differences with subjective claims. but to test yourself in what your hearing would be totally out of the question becuase you already know what you hear through what you see.


You continually refuse to accept the statements from those of us who've used the fuses - and heard a difference - as anything other than "limp, subjective and scientifically unprovable" rather than just allowing us to try to inform others of the benefits of these fuses. In the end, it's your loss and not ours. You can continue to live with your myopic views on what does, or doesn't, work to improve the sound of an audio system. The rest of us will continue to enjoy whatever little tweaks we can do to improve the sound of ours.

I'm not the myopic one here I'm afraid. I'm willing to go to bat and be prooven wrong but you hide behind your subjective fact that you know. This fuse is just another myth like power chords expensive audicables, and cable lifters. Your example of a phono cartridge doesn't even apply to this arguement. If the subjective claim cannot be backed up with data explaining what you hear, than the claim remains subjective and uproven.

[emaidel]

And there's more to come!


The "more to come" was going to be a thorough discussion of the amazing benefits of the "Vibrapod" and "Vibracone" isolators I just purchased. While I'm nothing less than delighted with the results of using these devices, they've already been extensively - and positively - reviewed here on AR.

As for the previous post, I've already stated I have no faith in the "if it cannot be tested and documented, it doesn't exist" mentality. I'm quite content to live in my "dream world" in which I imagine that one thing sounds better than another, regardless of how anyone else does his best to try to disprove what I, and others, hear. As far as I know, there haven't been any scientific tests done to prove the claims made for the Vibraods and Vibracones, so, despite the plethora of glowingly positive reviews on them from a myriad of sources, all those making such claims must be mistaken and are only imagining such.

[bfalls]

The "more to come" was going to be a thorough discussion of the amazing benefits of the "Vibrapod" and "Vibracone" isolators I just purchased. While I'm nothing less than delighted with the results of using these devices, they've already been extensively - and positively - reviewed here on AR.

As for the previous post, I've already stated I have no faith in the "if it cannot be tested and documented, it doesn't exist" mentality. I'm quite content to live in my "dream world" in which I imagine that one thing sounds better than another, regardless of how anyone else does his best to try to disprove what I, and others, hear. As far as I know, there haven't been any scientific tests done to prove the claims made for the Vibraods and Vibracones, so, despite the plethora of glowingly positive reviews on them from a myriad of sources, all those making such claims must be mistaken and are only imagining such.

I much rather hear you rant on the benefits of Shakti Stones. Another questionable tweak (in another thread...please!). I've used vibrapods and "Little Feet" and other sorbothane products for vibration isolation with both components and bookshelf speakers and feel they have value. I'm also sure the benefits can/have been measured. I don't recall them being called into question.

I would also like to hear your opinions on the effects of age on hearing in men. Your profile states you were 64 when you started with AR. "Golden Ears" or not, what's your secret for escaping high and mid frequency loss with age? This fact alone brings into question your ability to detect such minor changes in detail.

At age 54, I know my hearing is not what it was. I know how to and frequently listen critically to all types of audio. I've been trained over the years while performing EQ calibrations in A/B and QC listening rooms working for CBS Records and Tapes in the mid 70s early 80s and again for Sony. When starting at Sony four years ago, a hearing test was required. Everything looked good, except for a dip in the upper frequencies between 15KHz and 20KHz. I don't work in a noisy environment and haven't attended excessively loud rock concerts, so can't attribute either to the loss.

At 64+, I have to believe your hearing has been affected, probably moreso in the mid-range since it's the primary range where hearing aids compensate for losses (I'll bet there's an age frequency loss chart available somewhere). Let us in on the secret where at 64+ you can still detect the subtle difference of signal passing through a 1" piece of silver wire (cryogenically treated) and a copper one. There's no way to test this outside of crawling into your head (shudder). So we're back at square one. Neither of us can prove or disprove what you hear/think you hear.

"I'm quite content to live in my "dream world" in which I imagine that one thing sounds better than another, regardless of how anyone else does his best to try to disprove what I, and others, hear." I think this thread has run its course.

[E-Stat]

The theory without getting overly technical is...in electrical conduction through a metal, its just supply potential enough to cause current flow and it requires very little potential for that too happen.
That's pretty funny! Should do well for your Captain Meteorite audition!

rw

[E-Stat]

I much rather hear you rant on the benefits of Shakti Stones. Another questionable tweak (in another thread...please!).
Ever heard a conventional laminated transformer hum? Ever wondered how low level circuitry inches away might be affected? Ever heard of EMI? Ever wondered why toroidal transformers have all but replaced the laminated type? The answers are all related. The VPI Magic Brick of many years ago addressed the same issue. Either product can reduce the local effects to nearby sensitive circuitry for the easily measured EMI field radiated by large laminated trannies.


At age 54, I know my hearing is not what it was...Everything looked good, except for a dip in the upper frequencies between 15KHz and 20KHz.
There is precious little musical content above 15k. The improvements I hear via the silver fuses are well below the 10k-20k octave.

rw

[3db]

That's pretty funny! Should do well for your Captain Meteorite audition!

rw


Unfortunately, I can't dumb it down any more than that to aid you in your understanding of current flow in a conductor.

[3db]

Ever heard a conventional lamintated transformer hum? Ever wondered how low level circuitry inches away might be affected? Ever heard of EMI? Ever wondered why toroidal transformers have all but replaced the laminated type? The answers are all related. The VPI Magic Brick of many years ago addressed the same issue. Either product can reduce the local effects to nearby sensitive circuitry for the easily measured EMI field radiated by large laminated trannies.


There is precious little musical content above 15k. The improvements I hear via the silver fuses are well below the 10k-20k octave.

rw

No hum in a fuse and certainly no fields setup of any kind in a straight conductor. EMI..not from a fuse..

Fuse and transformer behaviour are two different animals and there is NO correlation between the two. Fuses don't generate fields..

[E-Stat]

Unfortunately, I can't dumb it down any more than that to aid you in your understanding of current flow in a conductor.
Your "explanation" devoid of actual important metrics such as inductance, capacitance, etc. fails to explain any notion of causation.

rw

[E-Stat]

No hum in a fuse and certainly no fields setup of any kind in a straight conductor. EMI..not from a fuse..
Keep up with the topic at hand - Shakti stones.

rw

[E-Stat]

This fuse is just another myth like power chords (sic) expensive audicables, and cable lifters.
I feel in fine company with many notable recording engineers whose direct experience (you know - actually using them in a system vs. contemplating what they might do) suggests otherwise. While this list is composed by Grant Samuelsen of Shunyata, it does not alter the facts:

"Bob Ludwig (one of the worlds top recording engineers) Uses after-market power cords, conditioners and cabling throughout his recording studio and swears by them (not at them)

Rick Rubin (multi-grammy winning producer) Uses after-market power cords throughout his home studio and has had them over-nighted overseas for recording projects). He recommends them tirelessly to studios he works with and is very outspoken about their value.

James Guthrie (Grammy winner,Floyd's DSOTM mastering engineer) Uses and enthusiastically recommends after market PC's to colleagues, including Sony Japan, who after testing them in their systems purchased dozens of them at retail from a Japanese distributor. What no spiff? Nope, dozens of $1k and $2k power cords at retail--after testing.

Doug Sax (see James Guthrie) They are close, so even hardened skeptic DS was won over after hearing what they brought to the system used for SACD remaster of DOSTM

SkyWalker Sound (15 Grammys for best sound) Purchased multiple after market PC's for their studios, recommends them to others.

Steve Hoffman (Grammy winner, sound engineer) uses a variety of aftermarket power cords and even blogs and reviews about his experiences.

Stephen Epstein (Multi-Grammy winning engineer for Isaac Stern, Yo Yo Ma, Perlman etc) Uses after market PC's and refers to them as essential to his checking of masters.

Peter McGrath (Recording engineer) uses after market PC's for all his recording work at home and brings them with."

Quotes by engineers (http://www.shunyata.com/Content/endorsements-Prof.html#Guthrie%20/%20Sax)

This comment by a musician and trustee of a symphony perfectly describes my experience:

"Here is what I heard: The most dramatic effect was an improvement in transduced acoustics. Previously I heard vocal or musical instruments that sounded excellent but were missing something relative to a live performance experience. Now I heard harmonic depth within and between voices and instruments that provide the richness and stage presence of a live performance. Now the individual voices and instruments interact with one another as in real life. Now I easily heard the small echoes, reverberations and other cues (some people call this inner detail) associated with a live performance space that were previously absent. The speed of dynamic changes in percussion instruments (attack) were also improved to better resemble a live performance."

BTW, it was a thirty year member of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus, board of directors, perpetual season ticket holder and contributor to the Absolute Sound who introduced me to the concept. The sad part is that it is YOUR loss.

rw

[emaidel]

[QUOTE=bfalls]

I much rather hear you rant on the benefits of Shakti Stones.

I would also like to hear your opinions on the effects of age on hearing in men. Your profile states you were 64 when you started with AR. "Golden Ears" or not, what's your secret for escaping high and mid frequency loss with age? This fact alone brings into question your ability to detect such minor changes in detail.

At 64+, I have to believe your hearing has been affected, probably moreso in the mid-range since it's the primary range where hearing aids compensate for losses (I'll bet there's an age frequency loss chart available somewhere). Let us in on the secret where at 64+ you can still detect the subtle difference of signal passing through a 1" piece of silver wire (cryogenically treated) and a copper one. There's no way to test this outside of crawling into your head (shudder). So we're back at square one. Neither of us can prove or disprove what you hear/think you hear.

QUOTE]

At this point, I really don't give a rat's a$$ what you think, or would rather hear. The fact is actually quite simple: you're just too %^#)#*%-ing cheap to spend the $35 for one of these fuses and to try it out for yourself. Your persistent hiding behind the need for testing a product first to validate any claims for it, while ignoring the possibility that you might actually HEAR something without such tests is getting very, very tiresome.

I'm almost 65, and have no idea whether or not I'm suffering hearing loss of any type. I have a critical ear, and have had such for most of my adult life, over 30 years of which was spent in the Consumer Electronics Industry. I know when I hear something that sounds better to me than something else, and that's all the validation I need to know to accept that such a difference, or such differences, is/are real. If I hear it, it exists, whether or not someone first tested whatever it is that I'm hearing. Your criticisms have turned into needless personal attacks and you really ought to quit while you're behind. I find your comments, especially this last one, highly offensive and unecessary.

[emaidel]

Indeed. With the wife traveling, I spent a lot of time listening to the main system this weekend and put the other new fuse in the GamuT CD-1. While I listened to a range of material from Bach to Madonna, there is new level of detail to be found. Even with Madonna, there was more clarity to the rhythmic background and her voice articulation on Hard Candy. You are suddenly aware of small details that you had never before heard. Just like every time I've played familiar material on a reviewer friend's spectacular reference system. I'll mention this to him.

Thanks again. :)

rw

I'm glad you've heard what you've heard, and are pleased with your (modest) investment in another Hi-Fi tuning Fuse. As I've previously posted, I initially installed two each in my Dahlquist DQ-10 speakers, and then five in my Adcom GFA-5800 amp. While installing them in the speakers made a difference, the difference was considerably greater in the amp - perhaps because of a total of five, and then again, perhaps not. I just don't know.

There are three other components I have which I hope to install these fuses in: my subwoofer, my preamp and my SACD player. If the fuse in both the preamp and SACD player is easily accessible just by removing the cover, then it's a done deal, but if it's hard to get at, I'll just leave the component as is. The subwoofer is just a matter of moving it off the spikes it's sitting on, and removing the fuse from the back to check on its value.

Aside from the Vibrapods and Vibracones, I don't know of any other upgrade that makes as much of a difference, and costs so little.

[bfalls]

[QUOTE=bfalls]

I much rather hear you rant on the benefits of Shakti Stones.

I would also like to hear your opinions on the effects of age on hearing in men. Your profile states you were 64 when you started with AR. "Golden Ears" or not, what's your secret for escaping high and mid frequency loss with age? This fact alone brings into question your ability to detect such minor changes in detail.

At 64+, I have to believe your hearing has been affected, probably moreso in the mid-range since it's the primary range where hearing aids compensate for losses (I'll bet there's an age frequency loss chart available somewhere). Let us in on the secret where at 64+ you can still detect the subtle difference of signal passing through a 1" piece of silver wire (cryogenically treated) and a copper one. There's no way to test this outside of crawling into your head (shudder). So we're back at square one. Neither of us can prove or disprove what you hear/think you hear.

QUOTE]

At this point, I really don't give a rat's a$$ what you think, or would rather hear. The fact is actually quite simple: you're just too %^#)#*%-ing cheap to spend the $35 for one of these fuses and to try it out for yourself. Your persistent hiding behind the need for testing a product first to validate any claims for it, while ignoring the possibility that you might actually HEAR something without such tests is getting very, very tiresome.

I'm almost 65, and have no idea whether or not I'm suffering hearing loss of any type. I have a critical ear, and have had such for most of my adult life, over 30 years of which was spent in the Consumer Electronics Industry. I know when I hear something that sounds better to me than something else, and that's all the validation I need to know to accept that such a difference, or such differences, is/are real. If I hear it, it exists, whether or not someone first tested whatever it is that I'm hearing. Your criticisms have turned into needless personal attacks and you really ought to quit while you're behind. I find your comments, especially this last one, highly offensive and unecessary.

I believe I hit a nerve.:eek: It's not a personal attack, ,just an observation and valid reason to question your results. How can it be a personal attack when I offer that I suffer from loss at higher frequencies myself? Although not detrimentally since "There is precious little musical content above 15k". "Mans got to know his limitations." (Dirty Harry).

You venture into the offensive yourself with comments like" Ever heard a conventional laminated transformer hum? Duh, yeah. It's because it doesn't know the words, right? Ever wondered how low level circuitry inches away might be affected? One of the main reasons to design for short signal paths. Ever heard of EMI? Heard of it and designed for and around it in high and low power control circuits. Ever wondered why toroidal transformers have all but replaced the laminated type? Know and understand for field effects and convenience in design of multi-channel receivers. No offense intended on my part, just another of the "myopic views" you complain about.

[E-Stat]

I'm glad you've heard what you've heard, and are pleased with your (modest) investment in another Hi-Fi tuning Fuse. As I've previously posted, I initially installed two each in my Dahlquist DQ-10 speakers, and then five in my Adcom GFA-5800 amp. While installing them in the speakers made a difference, the difference was considerably greater in the amp - perhaps because of a total of five, and then again, perhaps not. I just don't know.
That's true. My Stasis also has five fuses although I'm not as picky with the vintage system.


There are three other components I have which I hope to install these fuses in: my subwoofer, my preamp and my SACD player.
I would vote for the player first, then the preamp. I probably wouldn't bother with the sub given its limited range.


Aside from the Vibrapods and Vibracones, I don't know of any other upgrade that makes as much of a difference, and costs so little.
I also use Vibrapods with the preamp, Ceraball roller ball isolators with the CDP, and a good old HW-2 base for the VPI turntable.

rw

[E-Stat]

You venture into the offensive yourself with comments like" Ever heard a conventional laminated transformer hum?
Like 3db, you are not able to keep track of who is saying what. Those were my questions.


Ever wondered why toroidal transformers have all but replaced the laminated type? Know and understand for field effects and convenience in design of multi-channel receivers.
First of all, they have been used in far more than multi-channel receivers. My 1992 Audio Research preamp has one. Field effects. As in minimized field effects! Bingo!!! You have answered your own question as to what Shakti stones are intended to address. Why is that so difficult for you to realize?

rw

[3db]

Your "explanation" devoid of actual important metrics such as inductance, capacitance, etc. fails to explain any notion of causation.

rw

Do you mean transmission line effects of a conductor? Parasitic losses due to inducatnace and capaicatance? Whoa dam your good.. NOT. These effect signals of the 100 Mhz range which is way higher than that audio frequency range. You have demonstrated quite clearly with this last statement thay you have no clue of what you are talking about. You throw out a few buzz words and hav eno understanding of the concepts implied nor their behavior in a circuit. Stop trying to play with teh big boys, get a book and read and educate yourself beofre wasting anyone else's time.

[3db]

I feel in fine company with many notable recording engineers whose direct experience (you know - actually using them in a system vs. contemplating what they might do) suggests otherwise. While this list is composed by Grant Samuelsen of Shunyata, it does not alter the facts:

"Bob Ludwig (one of the worlds top recording engineers) Uses after-market power cords, conditioners and cabling throughout his recording studio and swears by them (not at them)

Rick Rubin (multi-grammy winning producer) Uses after-market power cords throughout his home studio and has had them over-nighted overseas for recording projects). He recommends them tirelessly to studios he works with and is very outspoken about their value.

James Guthrie (Grammy winner,Floyd's DSOTM mastering engineer) Uses and enthusiastically recommends after market PC's to colleagues, including Sony Japan, who after testing them in their systems purchased dozens of them at retail from a Japanese distributor. What no spiff? Nope, dozens of $1k and $2k power cords at retail--after testing.

Doug Sax (see James Guthrie) They are close, so even hardened skeptic DS was won over after hearing what they brought to the system used for SACD remaster of DOSTM

SkyWalker Sound (15 Grammys for best sound) Purchased multiple after market PC's for their studios, recommends them to others.

Steve Hoffman (Grammy winner, sound engineer) uses a variety of aftermarket power cords and even blogs and reviews about his experiences.

Stephen Epstein (Multi-Grammy winning engineer for Isaac Stern, Yo Yo Ma, Perlman etc) Uses after market PC's and refers to them as essential to his checking of masters.

Peter McGrath (Recording engineer) uses after market PC's for all his recording work at home and brings them with."

Quotes by engineers (http://www.shunyata.com/Content/endorsements-Prof.html#Guthrie%20/%20Sax)

This comment by a musician and trustee of a symphony perfectly describes my experience:

"Here is what I heard: The most dramatic effect was an improvement in transduced acoustics. Previously I heard vocal or musical instruments that sounded excellent but were missing something relative to a live performance experience. Now I heard harmonic depth within and between voices and instruments that provide the richness and stage presence of a live performance. Now the individual voices and instruments interact with one another as in real life. Now I easily heard the small echoes, reverberations and other cues (some people call this inner detail) associated with a live performance space that were previously absent. The speed of dynamic changes in percussion instruments (attack) were also improved to better resemble a live performance."

BTW, it was a thirty year member of the Atlanta Symphony Chorus, board of directors, perpetual season ticket holder and contributor to the Absolute Sound who introduced me to the concept. The sad part is that it is YOUR loss.

rw

Your name dropping doesn't impress me nor does it add credability. Most of these are taken from adds trying to sell these mone stealing products. These guys actually hurt the reputation of the audio industry. The audio industry is so pervasive in snake oil BS and its the uneducated (uneducated meaning not educated in the principlles of Acoustics and Electrical properites) people that propogate this BS to nauseum.

[E-Stat]

Do you mean transmission line effects of a conductor? Parasitic losses due to inducatnace (sic) and capaicatance (sic)? Whoa dam your good.. NOT. These effect signals of the 100 Mhz range which is way higher than that audio frequency range.
Gee, that's funny. It is well known that high capacitance ICs can roll off the top octave in the audible range. That's why I use a low cap design.


You have demonstrated quite clearly with this last statement thay you have no clue of what you are talking about.
Just responding to your Astro Boy response. Nothing any better provided here either.

rw

[E-Stat]

Your name dropping doesn't impress me nor does it add credability (sic). Most of these are taken from adds (sic) trying to sell these mone (sic) stealing products.
Whether or not you care about what some of the best recording engineers find useful is pretty much irrelevant to them. :)


These guys actually hurt the reputation of the audio industry. The audio industry is so pervasive in snake oil BS and its the uneducated (uneducated meaning not educated in the principlles (sic) of Acoustics and Electrical properites (sic)) people that propogate (sic) this BS to nauseum.(sic)

Speaking of uneducated! Anyway, I think you're not exactly helping your viewpoint either. Experience? No. Plausible explanation? No.

rw

[Feanor]

Whether or not you care about what some of the best recording engineers find useful is pretty much irrelevant to them. :)
...
Speaking of uneducated! Anyway, I think you're not exactly helping your viewpoint either. Experience? No. Plausible explanation? No.

rw
Oh, you guys. :frown5: A couple of things:

For centuries medical practitioners were convinced that blood-letting was an efficacious treatment for many medical disorders.

The use of "sic" to point out minor spelling or similar errors is an ad hominen attack.

[E-Stat]

The use of "sic" to point out minor spelling or similar errors is an ad hominen attack.
You mean like suggesting that countless audio and recording engineers are simply uneducated and are hurting the industry instead of attempting to address the question itself? :)

rw

[bfalls]

Whether or not you care about what some of the best recording engineers find useful is pretty much irrelevant to them. :)



Speaking of uneducated! Anyway, I think you're not exactly helping your viewpoint either. Experience? No. Plausible explanation? No.

rw

How many of the names you've dropped have incorporated the Shakti Stones and "Magic Fuses" into their designs. Their web site list only one. Seems like a quick and easy way to release inner detail per yours and Emaidel's assertions. Beats the h#ll out of wasting the engineering time on their obviously flawed designs.

Even if they provide the tweaks free of cost, they should be money ahead. They could market their products as having the tweaks. Apparently what's said is different than what they'd do. Or they don't feel the tweaks are worthy enough or would be detrimental to sales.

The EMI tests on the Shakti site display tests using signals generated by a comb generator in the 312.5MHz - 1.6833GHz range and had to set the stone on top of the antenna to get the desired results. What does this have to do with audio? It may have some effect on data, but not analog.

If you look at their site's audio and video section, they have the stones placed all over the equipment, on the incoming and outgoing interconnect plugs, the power plug, in-line with the interconnect and speaker cables. Large stones setting on top of components, also framing the tweeter of one speaker. They even had half a dozen stones set on the circuit board of what appears to be an open preamp. Could get expensive for a tweak.

[Feanor]

You mean like suggesting that countless audio and recording engineers are simply uneducated and are hurting the industry instead of attempting to address the question itself? :)

rw

I'm saying that I don't know about A&R engineers, but that the practioners of various arts have common practices that aren't necessarily founded solidly in science.

[E-Stat]

How many of the names you've dropped have incorporated the Shakti Stones and "Magic Fuses" into their designs.
Are you incapable of cross-referencing names of those who use both aftermarket power cords and Shakti stones? I'll help you out. I find four from the two lists. Clearly, the larger number (18+) on the Shakti list are audio manufacturers themselves.


Their web site list only one.
To which company do you refer? Hi-Fi Tuning is a German company and Shakti Innovations is located in California.


The EMI tests on the Shakti site display tests using signals generated by a comb generator in the 312.5MHz - 1.6833GHz range and had to set the stone on top of the antenna to get the desired results. What does this have to do with audio? It may have some effect on data, but not analog.
That would be the reason engineers put RF filters on the inputs of amplifiers and the like.


If you look at their site's audio and video section, they have the stones placed all over the equipment...Could get expensive for a tweak.
Ok. I consider using a pair of similar devices on $10,000 VTL amps to be quite reasonable. You may think otherwise.

rw

[E-Stat]

I'm saying that I don't know about A&R engineers, but that the practioners of various arts have common practices that aren't necessarily founded solidly in science.
Ok. Clearly, my references have been about experienced audio and recording engineers.

rw

[3db]

Whether or not you care about what some of the best recording engineers find useful is pretty much irrelevant to them. :)



Speaking of uneducated! Anyway, I think you're not exactly helping your viewpoint either. Experience? No. Plausible explanation? No.

rw

Follow the lemmings off the cliff as your incapable of thinking freely for yourself.

Every example you have shown me is just plain wrong. Give it up man. Your spinning wheels going no where's fast. *pats your pointy little head" E for effort.

[3db]

Ok. Clearly, my references have been about experienced audio and recording engineers.

rw

which you have soundly misinterpreted..

[E-Stat]

Follow the lemmings off the cliff as your incapable of thinking freely for yourself.
I've been using and enjoying the benefits of aftermarket power cords for about seven years now. I found the endorsements of the famous recording engineers yesterday. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

which you have soundly misinterpreted..
Really? Hmmm. Gee, that's not what these guys are saying:

"All of us associated with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra are extremely pleased with the results gained from using the Shunyata Research Hydra and power cords in our reference recording studios. These outstanding, musical products have enhanced our recordings and made it easier for our musicians to hear the detail of their instruments!"
-- Peter Poltun, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra

“As studio owners, we are regularly exposed to numerous ‘quality enhancement products’ and have naturally become cautious and very selective; you rarely achieve an audible improvement without somehow adversely affecting another element in the audio chain. We have been using Shunyata power cables at my studio for some time now. Careful placement of the cables has resulted in reduced distortion, improved clarity, better low level detail and richer 3-dimensional depth in the soundstage. The Anaconda PowerSnakes, for example, have transformed our Sonoma system, used during the mastering process for the new 5.1 mix of ‘The Dark Side of The Moon’. I look forward to trying the Hydra AC distribution next. Highly recommended."
-- James Guthrie, Grammy award winning Producer/Engineer (Pink Floyd)

“We first put the Hydra to test on a monitor system that had problems with noise and clarity. The result was less noise with an improvement in overall sound quality. We now use the Hydra's on our Model 2 converters, AES router and main monitor system consisting of B&W 802 speakers and Chord Amps.“
-- Clayton Wood, Senior Engineer: SkyWalker Sound

"Shunyata Research power cables and interconnects made a remarkable difference in my reference system. The PowerSnakes power cables added effortless muscularity, control and wide-open clarity to the amps driving my speakers. These are not subtle tweaks. I would guess the amps sound 15 percent better -- a far bigger difference than any speaker cables have made and in many cases, as unbelievable as it may seem, a greater improvement than changing the whole front end. I could not recommend them highly enough."
-- Rick Rubin, Grammy winning Record Producer

"We conducted a series of listening test to both the Shunyata cables and the Hydra power conditioner. Our comparison point included both standard mains cables and other esoteric cables. We found that both the Shunyata cables and the Hydra gave the best results by some margin."
-- Phil Taylor, Studio Manager: Astoria Studio, UK

"We were particularly impressed with the sense of phase coherence that Shunyata products delivered, giving noticeably better imaging, depth and clarity. We tried many different areas of our signal path, all benefited. With digital sources it was almost as if we had switched from 44.1k/16 bit to 96k/ 24 bit. We now run all our analogue machines, workstations and the mixing console from the Shunyata equipment."
-- Andy Jackson, Senior Mastering Engineer: Astoria Studio. UK

"I have personally evaluated the Hydra power conditioning system along with your PowerSnakes power cables. I was very impressed with the results. Shunyata Research products are now part of my equipment set up. Especially, with my 2 track tape machines, the sound with your system was definitely more transparent and clear. I would highly recommend Shunyata Research products to any professional audio/video facility.”
-- Vlado Meller, Senior Mastering Engineer: Sony Music Studios, New York

"I have been very skeptical of power related tweaks above and beyond good basic engineering practices like wire sizing, proper grounding and good solid connections. That said I tried to be open to the merits of the Shunyata approach regarding power management. After living with various power cables, outlets and Hydra AC distribution systems for several months while working on my DMP Archive Project, I can honestly say that Shunyata Power Systems do contribute to a more solid, focused and accurate sonic picture."
-- Tom Jung, President: Digital Music Products Inc.

"For many years, I've tried and tested power conditioners by major manufacturers with varying results. I'm pleased to say that I can now put my search for the elusive optimal AC conditioner to rest. The Hydra Model-8 and Hydra Model-2 power conditioners coupled with Shunyata's power cables have provided me with an extremely clean and transparent foundation by which I can check and approve test pressings with full confidence."
-- Steven Epstein, 12 time Grammy winner 6 time Grammy winner: "Classical Producer Of The Year”

"I've run out of words to describe the effect Shunyata Research has had on the SACD experience in our studio. From the mass and quality of the Hydra power distribution center with it's dynamic openness, the clarity gleaned from the Anaconda Alpha/Anaconda VX, and the direct detail obtained from the interconnects and speaker cables. Shunyata Research has put a very positive signature on Crest National's, Hollywood reference listening experience."
-- Jon Truckenmiller, Sr. VP Engineering: Crest National Studios

"We are using various Shunyata products to further our quest for the best signal path in tracking, mixing, and mastering. The Hydra Model-2 and Hydra Model-6 on various vintage guitar amps and vintage analog keyboards have made a world of difference in clarity and punch. We are using the Python line for our 24-track tape machine, DACs, tube preamps, and tube microphone power supplies. On the power amps we have the Taipan line. Again I have noticed more definition in the transients. Overall I think that Shunyata products are an integral part of taking the critical listening system to the next level."
-- Brett Allen, Studio Manager: Look Out Sound Studios

“After trying numerous top shelf brands of power distribution and IC's for my mastering facility, only the Shunyata Research Hydra's and PowerSnakes remained as a vital part of my signal path and playback system. It's never been so easy to achieve the great sound that I have been striving for -- I no longer have to reach for my equalizers to find space for the details that I now have in spades. Lower noise levels let me get deeper into a mix without sacrificing power to my equipment. No anemic sounds here! Just music that always sounds right. I want to re-master my whole discography now!”
-- Phil Demetro, Mastering Engineer: The Lacquer Channel, Toronto

All in all, the system now produces an audio hologram that much more closely approximates a live performance. Thanks for your recommendation of this excellent product."
-- Doug Munch, New Jersey Philharmonic Orchestra

Feel free to disagree with us. :)

rw

[3db]

Really? Hmmm. Gee, that's not what these guys are saying:

"All of us associated with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra are extremely pleased with the results gained from using the Shunyata Research Hydra and power cords in our reference recording studios. These outstanding, musical products have enhanced our recordings and made it easier for our musicians to hear the detail of their instruments!"
-- Peter Poltun, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra

“As studio owners, we are regularly exposed to numerous ‘quality enhancement products’ and have naturally become cautious and very selective; you rarely achieve an audible improvement without somehow adversely affecting another element in the audio chain. We have been using Shunyata power cables at my studio for some time now. Careful placement of the cables has resulted in reduced distortion, improved clarity, better low level detail and richer 3-dimensional depth in the soundstage. The Anaconda PowerSnakes, for example, have transformed our Sonoma system, used during the mastering process for the new 5.1 mix of ‘The Dark Side of The Moon’. I look forward to trying the Hydra AC distribution next. Highly recommended."
-- James Guthrie, Grammy award winning Producer/Engineer (Pink Floyd)

“We first put the Hydra to test on a monitor system that had problems with noise and clarity. The result was less noise with an improvement in overall sound quality. We now use the Hydra's on our Model 2 converters, AES router and main monitor system consisting of B&W 802 speakers and Chord Amps.“
-- Clayton Wood, Senior Engineer: SkyWalker Sound

"Shunyata Research power cables and interconnects made a remarkable difference in my reference system. The PowerSnakes power cables added effortless muscularity, control and wide-open clarity to the amps driving my speakers. These are not subtle tweaks. I would guess the amps sound 15 percent better -- a far bigger difference than any speaker cables have made and in many cases, as unbelievable as it may seem, a greater improvement than changing the whole front end. I could not recommend them highly enough."
-- Rick Rubin, Grammy winning Record Producer

"We conducted a series of listening test to both the Shunyata cables and the Hydra power conditioner. Our comparison point included both standard mains cables and other esoteric cables. We found that both the Shunyata cables and the Hydra gave the best results by some margin."
-- Phil Taylor, Studio Manager: Astoria Studio, UK

"We were particularly impressed with the sense of phase coherence that Shunyata products delivered, giving noticeably better imaging, depth and clarity. We tried many different areas of our signal path, all benefited. With digital sources it was almost as if we had switched from 44.1k/16 bit to 96k/ 24 bit. We now run all our analogue machines, workstations and the mixing console from the Shunyata equipment."
-- Andy Jackson, Senior Mastering Engineer: Astoria Studio. UK

"I have personally evaluated the Hydra power conditioning system along with your PowerSnakes power cables. I was very impressed with the results. Shunyata Research products are now part of my equipment set up. Especially, with my 2 track tape machines, the sound with your system was definitely more transparent and clear. I would highly recommend Shunyata Research products to any professional audio/video facility.”
-- Vlado Meller, Senior Mastering Engineer: Sony Music Studios, New York

"I have been very skeptical of power related tweaks above and beyond good basic engineering practices like wire sizing, proper grounding and good solid connections. That said I tried to be open to the merits of the Shunyata approach regarding power management. After living with various power cables, outlets and Hydra AC distribution systems for several months while working on my DMP Archive Project, I can honestly say that Shunyata Power Systems do contribute to a more solid, focused and accurate sonic picture."
-- Tom Jung, President: Digital Music Products Inc.

"For many years, I've tried and tested power conditioners by major manufacturers with varying results. I'm pleased to say that I can now put my search for the elusive optimal AC conditioner to rest. The Hydra Model-8 and Hydra Model-2 power conditioners coupled with Shunyata's power cables have provided me with an extremely clean and transparent foundation by which I can check and approve test pressings with full confidence."
-- Steven Epstein, 12 time Grammy winner 6 time Grammy winner: "Classical Producer Of The Year”

"I've run out of words to describe the effect Shunyata Research has had on the SACD experience in our studio. From the mass and quality of the Hydra power distribution center with it's dynamic openness, the clarity gleaned from the Anaconda Alpha/Anaconda VX, and the direct detail obtained from the interconnects and speaker cables. Shunyata Research has put a very positive signature on Crest National's, Hollywood reference listening experience."
-- Jon Truckenmiller, Sr. VP Engineering: Crest National Studios

"We are using various Shunyata products to further our quest for the best signal path in tracking, mixing, and mastering. The Hydra Model-2 and Hydra Model-6 on various vintage guitar amps and vintage analog keyboards have made a world of difference in clarity and punch. We are using the Python line for our 24-track tape machine, DACs, tube preamps, and tube microphone power supplies. On the power amps we have the Taipan line. Again I have noticed more definition in the transients. Overall I think that Shunyata products are an integral part of taking the critical listening system to the next level."
-- Brett Allen, Studio Manager: Look Out Sound Studios

“After trying numerous top shelf brands of power distribution and IC's for my mastering facility, only the Shunyata Research Hydra's and PowerSnakes remained as a vital part of my signal path and playback system. It's never been so easy to achieve the great sound that I have been striving for -- I no longer have to reach for my equalizers to find space for the details that I now have in spades. Lower noise levels let me get deeper into a mix without sacrificing power to my equipment. No anemic sounds here! Just music that always sounds right. I want to re-master my whole discography now!”
-- Phil Demetro, Mastering Engineer: The Lacquer Channel, Toronto

All in all, the system now produces an audio hologram that much more closely approximates a live performance. Thanks for your recommendation of this excellent product."
-- Doug Munch, New Jersey Philharmonic Orchestra

Feel free to disagree with us. :)

rw


Ok.. I'll disagree. :p

[E-Stat]

Ok.. I'll disagree.
I have always marveled as to how much time some folks devote to discussing that which their belief structure asserts does not exist.

Deja vu (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=14072&postcount=41)

rw

[3db]

I have always marveled as to how much time some folks devote to discussing that which their belief structure asserts does not exist.

Deja vu (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=14072&postcount=41)

rw


All in the name of science my friend. I believe good audio is a result of tried and true practises in both acoustics and electrical principles and not thru tweeks that cannot be explained through these principles. Nothing you mentioned in this thread explained the reason for the improved sound. You supplied no concrete examples as to why its sounds better..You just beleive they do through your ears and through some lame testimonials from people who beleive snake oil is alive and well. I beleive in science and egineering prinicples which you clearly failed to demonstrate time and time again. Your beleifs maybe strong but the basis which supports your beliefs is simply not there.

[E-Stat]

All in the name of science my friend.
And when asked about that science, you play Astro Boy with your absurd *explanation*. We're still waiting for a serious response from you. Let's review your claim and your response.

3db: "If you understood electrical principles, you would see my point."

Moi: Please explain it to us.

3db: "The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. I can TOTALLY understand how one cartridge could sound better/worse/different than another simply because there' s a electrical-mechanical interface there based on geometries of movement, variances of the coils between channels, etc. But in electrical conduction through a metal, its just supply potential enough to cause current flow and it requires very little potential for that too happen."

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously. Hint: your farcical little story needs to explain causation in context with audio signals driving speakers which provide a complex and changing load to the amplifier driving them. Also, you share bfall's confusion with who said what. emaidel spoke of a phono cartridge.

As for me, I'm done with the topic. Your lame scientific explanation speaks for itself. And, for heaven's sake, find yourself a spell checker. :)

rw

[3db]

And when asked about that science, you play Astro Boy with your absurd *explanation*. We're still waiting for a serious response from you. Let's review your claim and your response.

3db: "If you understood electrical principles, you would see my point."

Moi: Please explain it to us.

3db: "The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. I can TOTALLY understand how one cartridge could sound better/worse/different than another simply because there' s a electrical-mechanical interface there based on geometries of movement, variances of the coils between channels, etc. But in electrical conduction through a metal, its just supply potential enough to cause current flow and it requires very little potential for that too happen."

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously. Hint: your farcical little story needs to explain causation in context with audio signals driving speakers which provide a complex and changing load to the amplifier driving them. Also, you share bfall's confusion with who said what. emaidel spoke of a phono cartridge.

As for me, I'm done with the topic. Your lame scientific explanation speaks for itself. And, for heaven's sake, find yourself a spell checker. :)

rw

No offense but I cant take the hearing of a 64 year old as gospel :) My story starts with the fuse and ends with the fuse . A conductor doesn't drive a loudspeaker. It simply conducts. Like I siad before, I tried to dumb it down for your level of understanding but a basic understand on your part seems to me missing. :p

[bfalls]

And when asked about that science, you play Astro Boy with your absurd *explanation*. We're still waiting for a serious response from you. Let's review your claim and your response.

3db: "If you understood electrical principles, you would see my point."

Moi: Please explain it to us.

3db: "The theory without getting overly technical is that a metal's electrons are easily ripped from their orbits around the nucleus. The easier the electrons are pulled from their orbit, the better a conductor that material makes and the less energy required to make that happen. The distance between the nucleus and orbit of the electrons is what determines how easy/hard it is to break the free electrons from their orbit.The greater that distance, the less potential is required to strip the electrons from their nucleus. Its simply an energy state relationship unlike the phono cartridge example you've supplied. I can TOTALLY understand how one cartridge could sound better/worse/different than another simply because there' s a electrical-mechanical interface there based on geometries of movement, variances of the coils between channels, etc. But in electrical conduction through a metal, its just supply potential enough to cause current flow and it requires very little potential for that too happen."

And you wonder why I don't take you seriously. Hint: your farcical little story needs to explain causation in context with audio signals driving speakers which provide a complex and changing load to the amplifier driving them. Also, you share bfall's confusion with who said what. emaidel spoke of a phono cartridge.

As for me, I'm done with the topic. Your lame scientific explanation speaks for itself. And, for heaven's sake, find yourself a spell checker. :)

rw

I doubt you're done with this topic. You always like to have the last word. 3db's explanation of basic electron current flow makes perfect sense to its point. He was dumbing it down so you could understand. Apparently not ehough. It's basic electron theory on conductivity I was exposed to in the 5th grade (early 60s), far from a "farcical little story".

You're asking him to provide to you a comprehensive understanding and analysis of how a speaker works. Why? You haven't understood his explanations to this point. It would be a waste of time and effort to go into further detail. Why should he jump through your hoops, when you ignore/discount his explanations anyway. Your only response is "I know I hear a difference", "more clarity". I haven't disregarded all your tweaks, since some are based in electronic theory. I do believe speaker wires and interconnects can sound different. The electrical characteristics of several feet of wire connected to a crossover will have some effect on the sound. Different, but not always better.

I understand what you're asking 3bd, I've had advanced AC circuit theory and analysis and understand loading, phase angle, etc.. I've read and understood speaker reviews for over 35yrs. Do you understand the entire measurement portion of speaker reviews, impedeance curves, off-axis response, adjusted frequency response...? I'd bet you probably just look at the pretty pictures, but doubt you understand them. Without understanding electronic theory, you probably pass over the entire section. It's why you're so gullible. Instead of asking us to disproved your assertions, why not prove them with facts.
As far as any confusion between you and emaidel. I'm guilty. It's difficult to tell you two apart. You must have gone to the same "fanboy" classes. You spout the same generalities and disregard for sound (no pun intended) electrical theory. I guess it's true what they say, you know about "old dogs" and "new tricks"?

[E-Stat]

I doubt you're done with this topic.
Yours is the last word.

rw

[hifitommy]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! as IF.

[3db]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! as IF.

As if what? :p

[hifitommy]

from THIS paragraph:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">http://forums.audioreview.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif

<!-- message --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">http://forums.audioreview.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif

<!-- message --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


All in the name of science my friend. I believe good audio is a result of tried and true practises in both acoustics and electrical principles and not thru tweeks that cannot be explained through these principles. Nothing you mentioned in this thread explained the reason for the improved sound. You supplied no concrete examples as to why its sounds better..You just beleive they do through your ears and through some lame testimonials from people who beleive snake oil is alive and well. I beleive in science and egineering prinicples which you clearly failed to demonstrate time and time again. Your beleifs maybe strong but the basis which supports your beliefs is simply not there.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


<all name="" my="" friend.="" good="" audio="" a="" result="" of="" tried="" true="" practices="" both="" acoustics="" electrical="" tweeks="" that="" cannot="" be="" these="" principles.="" nothing="" mentioned="" this="" thread="" explained="" reason="" for="" improved="" sound.="" supplied="" no="" concrete="" examples="" as="" why="" its="" sounds="" better..you="" just="" they="" do="" ears="" through="" some="" lame="" testimonials="" from="" people="" who="" snake="" oil="" alive="" well.="" i="" believe="" in="" science="" engineering="" principles="" you="" clearly="" failed="" to="" demonstrate="" and="" time="" again.="" maybe="" strong="" but="" the="" basis="" which="" supports="" your="" beliefs="" is="" simply="" not="" there.="">
you see, not everything can be measured, and when it can, you have to know what to measure. the example was made about early solid state measuring better about not SOUNDING better than the tubed electronics previously in this thread. better measurements were made possible by the misuse of feedback which undermined the sound of the products.

when discoveries in sound are made, the measurements to explain them many times, have yet to be devised. so stomping your foot and crowing that science doesnt support the sonic result of the tuning fuses is because of incomplete thinking on YOUR part.

in the meantime, if YOU dont hear a difference, dont but the fuses. the likelihood of your ever listening to those fuses is miniscule in any event.</all>

[poppachubby]

Interesting reading here. I would like to chime in and say I find it funny that anyone would doubt the opinion of a high profile engineer/producer. Certainly someone in the position of Rick Rubin would not need to shamelessly "advertise" for the sake of money or the like.

Quite the opposite, these guys know what they like and more importantly, know what gets results. Of course, the company lucky enough to find their wares in use by these guys will want to exploit the fact as a means of advertising. Of course, they will offer endless cash and perks for the endorsement. However, the bottom line is that no producer/engineer as high profile as those mentioned, would need to endorse any product other than those they find of actual benefit.

Present topic aside, you can't cast away the opinions of proven studio gurus. These guys are basically genius' behind a board, I think they know a thing or two... you may find yourself in a state of denial should you not agree.

[3db]

Interesting reading here. I would like to chime in and say I find it funny that anyone would doubt the opinion of a high profile engineer/producer. Certainly someone in the position of Rick Rubin would not need to shamelessly "advertise" for the sake of money or the like.

Quite the opposite, these guys know what they like and more importantly, know what gets results. Of course, the company lucky enough to find their wares in use by these guys will want to exploit the fact as a means of advertising. Of course, they will offer endless cash and perks for the endorsement. However, the bottom line is that no producer/engineer as high profile as those mentioned, would need to endorse any product other than those they find of actual benefit.

Present topic aside, you can't cast away the opinions of proven studio gurus. These guys are basically genius' behind a board, I think they know a thing or two... you may find yourself in a state of denial should you not agree.

I'm not the lemming that follows the other over the cliff. I find these audio gurus' that are promotomh high dollar audio cables, fuses, and powr cords snowing the public. The problem is, nobody calls them on it and they won't enter a single blind test or a double blnd test which would quickly point out that they are not sure of what sounds better.

[3db]

[QUOTE=
you see, not everything can be measured, and when it can, you have to know what to measure. the example was made about early solid state measuring better about not SOUNDING better than the tubed electronics previously in this thread. better measurements were made possible by the misuse of feedback which undermined the sound of the products.

when discoveries in sound are made, the measurements to explain them many times, have yet to be devised. so stomping your foot and crowing that science doesnt support the sonic result of the tuning fuses is because of incomplete thinking on YOUR part.

in the meantime, if YOU dont hear a difference, dont but the fuses. the likelihood of your ever listening to those fuses is miniscule in any event.</all>[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Everything you hear now in systems is based on carefully applied engineering and acoustic princples. Nothing goes into a design that cannot be measured. Do yourself a favour and read up on Dr. Floyd Toole's work. He clearly spells it out thhe many phsyco acooustics anomolies humans run into inlcuding audio memory. Of all the different types of memory, audio memory is one of the weakest ones. Yet, these so called audio gurus who claim to remember how could something sound 3 monthes ago fail to realize that audio memory is only accurate for about 2 minutes. That is why SBT or DBT testing is so important. It cuts thru all the chaff that influences what we hear.

A fuse is a conductor. Its conduction material is less than 2" . Its made of silver, one of the best naturally occuring conductors on the planet.. A 2" strip is NOT long enough to possess any serious values of parasytic inductance and capacitance (which by the way are the only aspects that could alter the sound as it acts as a filter) that could alter the sound, espcially in the audio spectrum.

I'm firmly entrenched in the camp of Dr Floyd Toole and others who take a systematic approach using science and physics. I would also enlist into a SBT or DBT test to be able to be proven wrong. At least I'm willing to be proven wrong unlike the gurus who hide behind their subjective wall chiming in that they hear the difference and won't take the test because they "hear" better.

[hifitommy]

i dont particularly care whether YOU want to use a product or not. IF i try a wire (ferinstance) or a fuse, and i hear a difference that i like, i will probably use it provided it isnt prohibitively priced. i wont be seeking your approval of such. nor will i heed any of your caveats.

i respect floyd toole but i dont worship ANYBODY. DBTs are not easy to implement properly and i seriously doubt that you do them for all purchases. just finding willing participants, the proper equipment and then carrying out the right procedures is a monumental task.

i have a fair amount of experience at this hobby and i have learned much by keeping my mouth shut and listening. i have also learned a lot by listening for myself rather than relying on reviewers to tell me what to buy.

if and when i get around to trying the fuses, i will share my findings. i wont however, drum on people to use them or not to use them.

[JohnMichael]

i dont particularly care whether YOU want to use a product or not. IF i try a wire (ferinstance) or a fuse, and i hear a difference that i like, i will probably use it provided it isnt prohibitively priced. i wont be seeking your approval of such. nor will i heed any of your caveats.

i respect floyd toole but i dont worship ANYBODY. DBTs are not easy to implement properly and i seriously doubt that you do them for all purchases. just finding willing participants, the proper equipment and then carrying out the right procedures is a monumental task.

i have a fair amount of experience at this hobby and i have learned much by keeping my mouth shut and listening. i have also learned a lot by listening for myself rather than relying on reviewers to tell me what to buy.

if and when i get around to trying the fuses, i will share my findings. i wont however, drum on people to use them or not to use them.



Great post Tommy, I like your thinking. Same goes for E-Stat and Emaidel. Anything that makes my listening more enjoyable I am all for regardless of science. Music is an art and to enjoy art does not require science as much as contributions from another artist. Many designing audio today I consider an artist. Let us DBT that Monet.

[JoeE SP9]

This is the only hobby I'm aware of that has a large number of sourpuss spoilsports. They spend an enormous amount of time telling others what they can and can't hear. They also feel they have a right to play traffic cop with someone elses wallet. Their standard answer to anything they don't approve of is disbelief, derision and outright insults. They almost never try any of the tweaks or gadgets they disapprove of. They just loudly call for DBT's while simultaneously admonishing others for spending their own money. Investigating any tweak on their own is never attempted.

Personally I'd be more apt to listen to someone who actually tried a tweak and reported they heard no difference. Telling me and others we are not hearing what we report without trying it yourself gives you no credibility.

Hey, all you spoilsport sourpusses, put a sock in it. If you have nothing productive to add to a discussion keep your fingers to yourself.

[JohnMichael]

Yes what JoeE SP9 has said.

[3db]

Well you know the old expression, a fool and his money is easily parted. Instead of waisting money on such nonsense, put into the the upgrade of gear or room acoustics. The single biggest player in sound next to the speakers are room acoustics. Treating the room would have a much further reaching affect.

If I could do a proper DBT test I would. Last year at this time I exchanged out a Technics DX940 receiever for a Yamaha RX-V1800 and I thought I heard tighter bass and a more open soundstage. But the problem is, it took me 3 hours to exchange the receivers and any audio memory accurcay is shot in an around the 2 minute mark. What I would have loved was to be able to the DBT test to see if I actually heard a difference or just perceived to hear one. The only difference I do notice without a DBT test is that the Yamaha can keep on going in power levels where the Technics was running out of gas. This was observed through a Radio Shack SPL meter and I took note of the readings. Other than that, I don't trust my hearing becuase I also hear with my eyes and the RX-V1800 is beautiful sight in my mind.

[poppachubby]

Funny to hear Technics, Yamaha and Radio Shack in the same paragraph as DBT.

[3db]

Funny to hear Technics, Yamaha and Radio Shack in the same paragraph as DBT.

And??

[poppachubby]

Hahaha, just ribbing you man. Frankly, I see both sides of the coin in this debate. I think you could have made your point without pulling out the DBT. Nothing gets people rolling their eyes quicker than hearing about DBT, mostly for the reason that, it ain't gonna happen.

But anyhow, I think the bottom line is to each their own and everything in the audio world must be taken with a grain of proverbial salt, until tested out by one's own ears. Personally I wouldn't have a need for these fuses, or the desire. But when guys like E-Stat and Tommy talk, I listen. Your talkin years of experience. I am 32 years old, I would rather have these experienced guys help lead me to the cliff, from that vantage I can decide if a jump is in order.

[emaidel]

If I buy something - a Hi-Fi Tuning Fuse , or the Achromat turntable mat, or Vibrapods and Vibracones for example - install them and hear a difference, I post my findings here for others to read. First, I hope they enjoy reading what I have to say, and second, I hope they try these items out for themselves. This is precisely the case here with myself and EStat. Each of us bought several of these fuses, installed them in various pieces of equipment in our respective audio systems, and genuinely liked the differences we heard, all of which were directly attributed to the use of the Hi-Fi Tuning Fuses. Having Stereophile on our sides praising the fuses as a "Recommended Component" adds credibility to our observations. Neither of us partook of a DBT, but had one been available to us, I'm sure each of us would gladly have participated. And, I seriously believe, the DBT would only have further substantiated our personal findings. But, such a DBT isn't now, or likely ever will be, available to us. So, we trust our ears - you know, those things we all use to evaluated the audio equipment we've all been purchasing for most of our lifetimes.

I can give a very good example of how a DBT - and a carefully controlled and designed one at that - provided genuinely false results. During the late 70's, ESS was conducting a series of DBT's in college campuses across the country as part of their advertising campaign, "ESS Wins on Campus." The test was incredibly well put together and monitored.

Two inexpensive ESS speakers (the Performance Series One and Five) were compared to about 7 or 8 other speakers from other known manufacturers, all of which were a good deal more expensive than the ESS models. An acoustically inert screen was placed in front of these speakers to obscure them so that listeners couldn't see what they were listening to. Levels were all carefully set via a noise generator so that the "louder is better" syndrome couldn't affect the results. Bose 901's were provided with the appropriate reflecting surfaces so as not to mar their performance in the test. And, for the "double" part of the test, the numbers assigned to the speakers during the comparisons were routinely scrambled so that no particular bias could be formed. Specifically, if speaker "5" were preferred to speaker "3" in a given comparison, the next time the listeners were told that speaker "5" was playing, it was a different speaker.

The tests ran most of the day with many different sessions, each including about 20 or so students. The tests were conducted over a period of about a week, and at the end, the results were tabulated. Based on these DBT's, a stunning "conclusion" was made: the ESS PS-1 (at a list of $149.95) was repeatedly preferred by a majority of the listeners by a factor of greater than 3 to 1 to the far more expensive Bose 901. The PS-1 was also chosen far more often than a JBL L-40, as well as anythng used from AR, Infinity and Cerwin Vega. While the ESS PS-1 was chosen over all of these speakers, the margin was the greatest in comparing it to the Bose 901.

Lawsuit-happy Amar Bose desperately threatened to sue ESS, claiming fraud, but after carefully examining the testing procedure, he had to back down as there was nothing fraudulent about how it was designed and administered. So, did this actually "prove" that the ESS PS-1 was a better speaker than all the others? Of course it didn't, but it surely proved the fallacy of a DBT, no matter how carefully designed and administered it was.

[poppachubby]

If I buy something - a Hi-Fi Tuning Fuse , or the Achromat turntable mat, or Vibrapods and Vibracones for example - install them and hear a difference, I post my findings here for others to read. First, I hope they enjoy reading what I have to say, and second, I hope they try these items out for themselves. .

Keep em coming, I for one enjoy your findings. My Vibrapods should arrive any day. Did you see my DIY isolation feet? They work really well and will be a great reference for me when checking out the VP's.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=32009

This all stemmed from your post and findings. It's really quite simple. If I find something of interest, with credible findings, I will order it up or make it myself. Seems arguiing on AR gets me no closer to actually hearing anything for myself. As for these fuses, I have no interest.

Perhaps for kicks, I'll have my wife conduct a DBT!! Wouldn't that be a hoot?!?

[E-Stat]

So, did this actually "prove" that the ESS PS-1 was a better speaker than all the others? Of course it didn't, but it surely proved the fallacy of a DBT, no matter how carefully designed and administered it was.
The irony is that most novice listeners would most likely NOT prefer the very finest and highest resolution systems because they do not initially sound *impressive*. There is no booming bass nor soaring highs. You hear the extended voice of a bell tree only when it is played - not as a false brightness imparted to everything. And whose harmonics seem to linger forever in their sweet decay...

I truly wish others could share in my fortune in having thirty plus years of exposure to the incredible systems of two audio reviewer friends. These two gentlemen have been my mentors since I was 19 or so and have enlightened me in countless ways as to what audio systems are capable of achieving. One system in particular is downright spooky in its ability to make the walls disappear and place you in a large acoustical space where you can hear everything on the recording. It has been in this environment where I learned my love for electrostatic speakers, tube amps and various tweaks that only serve to improve the musical experience.

rw

[poppachubby]

The irony is that most novice listeners would most likely NOT prefer the very finest and highest resolution systems because they do not initially sound *impressive*. There is no booming bass nor soaring highs. You hear the extended voice of a bell tree only when it is played - not as a false brightness imparted to everything. And whose harmonics seem to linger forever in their sweet decay...

I truly wish others could share in my fortune in having thirty plus years of exposure to the incredible systems of two audio reviewer friends. These two gentlemen have been my mentors since I was 19 or so and have enlightened me in countless ways as to what audio systems are capable of achieving. One system in particular is downright spooky in its ability to make the walls disappear and place you in a large acoustical space where you can hear everything on the recording. It has been in this environment where I learned my love for electrostatic speakers, tube amps and various tweaks that only serve to improve the musical experience.

rw

E-Stat, I find you make alot of references to neutral and uncolored. I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying, however, as a musician I can't help but be afraid of those specific terms.

If there's one thing I know I love, it's natural sound reproduction. It's obviously less fatiguing and to me, the closest thing to being in a room with a band. Any overly boosted frequencies, particularily bass, will ruin a nice natural sound. This is why I love my AKG K240S cans, it's a wonderful, natural sound.

When you're speaking of neutral, uncolored, etc, is this what you're referring to?

[3db]

If I buy something - a Hi-Fi Tuning Fuse , or the Achromat turntable mat, or Vibrapods and Vibracones for example - install them and hear a difference, I post my findings here for others to read. First, I hope they enjoy reading what I have to say, and second, I hope they try these items out for themselves. This is precisely the case here with myself and EStat. Each of us bought several of these fuses, installed them in various pieces of equipment in our respective audio systems, and genuinely liked the differences we heard, all of which were directly attributed to the use of the Hi-Fi Tuning Fuses. Having Stereophile on our sides praising the fuses as a "Recommended Component" adds credibility to our observations. Neither of us partook of a DBT, but had one been available to us, I'm sure each of us would gladly have participated. And, I seriously believe, the DBT would only have further substantiated our personal findings. But, such a DBT isn't now, or likely ever will be, available to us. So, we trust our ears - you know, those things we all use to evaluated the audio equipment we've all been purchasing for most of our lifetimes.

I can give a very good example of how a DBT - and a carefully controlled and designed one at that - provided genuinely false results. During the late 70's, ESS was conducting a series of DBT's in college campuses across the country as part of their advertising campaign, "ESS Wins on Campus." The test was incredibly well put together and monitored.

Two inexpensive ESS speakers (the Performance Series One and Five) were compared to about 7 or 8 other speakers from other known manufacturers, all of which were a good deal more expensive than the ESS models. An acoustically inert screen was placed in front of these speakers to obscure them so that listeners couldn't see what they were listening to. Levels were all carefully set via a noise generator so that the "louder is better" syndrome couldn't affect the results. Bose 901's were provided with the appropriate reflecting surfaces so as not to mar their performance in the test. And, for the "double" part of the test, the numbers assigned to the speakers during the comparisons were routinely scrambled so that no particular bias could be formed. Specifically, if speaker "5" were preferred to speaker "3" in a given comparison, the next time the listeners were told that speaker "5" was playing, it was a different speaker.

The tests ran most of the day with many different sessions, each including about 20 or so students. The tests were conducted over a period of about a week, and at the end, the results were tabulated. Based on these DBT's, a stunning "conclusion" was made: the ESS PS-1 (at a list of $149.95) was repeatedly preferred by a majority of the listeners by a factor of greater than 3 to 1 to the far more expensive Bose 901. The PS-1 was also chosen far more often than a JBL L-40, as well as anythng used from AR, Infinity and Cerwin Vega. While the ESS PS-1 was chosen over all of these speakers, the margin was the greatest in comparing it to the Bose 901.

Lawsuit-happy Amar Bose desperately threatened to sue ESS, claiming fraud, but after carefully examining the testing procedure, he had to back down as there was nothing fraudulent about how it was designed and administered. So, did this actually "prove" that the ESS PS-1 was a better speaker than all the others? Of course it didn't, but it surely proved the fallacy of a DBT, no matter how carefully designed and administered it was.

It shows preferences and I can understand that outcome. Different speakers sound differently. Different speaker manufactures, different drivers, diffwerent cabinet resonanances...just way too many variables. But that is an all together different testing than a fuse in and out of the circuit. There, the only variable is the fuse. With test you described, there are an ifinite number of variables. If the ESS speaker sounds better, what does that tell you?

[3db]

If I buy something - a Hi-Fi Tuning Fuse , or the Achromat turntable mat, or Vibrapods and Vibracones for example - install them and hear a difference, I post my findings here for others to read. First, I hope they enjoy reading what I have to say, and second, I hope they try these items out for themselves. This is precisely the case here with myself and EStat. Each of us bought several of these fuses, installed them in various pieces of equipment in our respective audio systems, and genuinely liked the differences we heard, all of which were directly attributed to the use of the Hi-Fi Tuning Fuses. Having Stereophile on our sides praising the fuses as a "Recommended Component" adds credibility to our observations. Neither of us partook of a DBT, but had one been available to us, I'm sure each of us would gladly have participated. And, I seriously believe, the DBT would only have further substantiated our personal findings. But, such a DBT isn't now, or likely ever will be, available to us. So, we trust our ears - you know, those things we all use to evaluated the audio equipment we've all been purchasing for most of our lifetimes.

I can give a very good example of how a DBT - and a carefully controlled and designed one at that - provided genuinely false results. During the late 70's, ESS was conducting a series of DBT's in college campuses across the country as part of their advertising campaign, "ESS Wins on Campus." The test was incredibly well put together and monitored.

Two inexpensive ESS speakers (the Performance Series One and Five) were compared to about 7 or 8 other speakers from other known manufacturers, all of which were a good deal more expensive than the ESS models. An acoustically inert screen was placed in front of these speakers to obscure them so that listeners couldn't see what they were listening to. Levels were all carefully set via a noise generator so that the "louder is better" syndrome couldn't affect the results. Bose 901's were provided with the appropriate reflecting surfaces so as not to mar their performance in the test. And, for the "double" part of the test, the numbers assigned to the speakers during the comparisons were routinely scrambled so that no particular bias could be formed. Specifically, if speaker "5" were preferred to speaker "3" in a given comparison, the next time the listeners were told that speaker "5" was playing, it was a different speaker.

The tests ran most of the day with many different sessions, each including about 20 or so students. The tests were conducted over a period of about a week, and at the end, the results were tabulated. Based on these DBT's, a stunning "conclusion" was made: the ESS PS-1 (at a list of $149.95) was repeatedly preferred by a majority of the listeners by a factor of greater than 3 to 1 to the far more expensive Bose 901. The PS-1 was also chosen far more often than a JBL L-40, as well as anythng used from AR, Infinity and Cerwin Vega. While the ESS PS-1 was chosen over all of these speakers, the margin was the greatest in comparing it to the Bose 901.

Lawsuit-happy Amar Bose desperately threatened to sue ESS, claiming fraud, but after carefully examining the testing procedure, he had to back down as there was nothing fraudulent about how it was designed and administered. So, did this actually "prove" that the ESS PS-1 was a better speaker than all the others? Of course it didn't, but it surely proved the fallacy of a DBT, no matter how carefully designed and administered it was.

BTW, thankyou for keeping the discussion clean. I do appreciate this.

[Feanor]

....

The tests ran most of the day with many different sessions, each including about 20 or so students. The tests were conducted over a period of about a week, and at the end, the results were tabulated. Based on these DBT's, a stunning "conclusion" was made: the ESS PS-1 (at a list of $149.95) was repeatedly preferred by a majority of the listeners by a factor of greater than 3 to 1 to the far more expensive Bose 901. The PS-1 was also chosen far more often than a JBL L-40, as well as anythng used from AR, Infinity and Cerwin Vega. While the ESS PS-1 was chosen over all of these speakers, the margin was the greatest in comparing it to the Bose 901.

Lawsuit-happy Amar Bose desperately threatened to sue ESS, claiming fraud, but after carefully examining the testing procedure, he had to back down as there was nothing fraudulent about how it was designed and administered. So, did this actually "prove" that the ESS PS-1 was a better speaker than all the others? Of course it didn't, but it surely proved the fallacy of a DBT, no matter how carefully designed and administered it was.

I'm confused, Emaidel. What are you saying? Did I miss paragraph or something? Sounds to me that you're saying the ESS PS-1 were "better" only because people preferred them, but somehow they weren't better because they were up against the likes of AR, et al..

Also, did I construe from E-Stat's comments that he attributes this to "inexperienced" listeners?

If I correctly recall, Flloyd Toole demonstrated in his well-controlled experiments is that inexperience and experienced listeners both preferred the same qualities in a speaker, and select the same speakers as best, (albeit the experienced users came to their conclusions more quickly).

[E-Stat]

When you're speaking of neutral, uncolored, etc, is this what you're referring to?
When you go to a typical big box retailer (Best Buy, Fry's, etc), what kind of sound do you hear? Tipped up bass and treble. Especially the upper bass. Boom. Sizzle. "Like, totally kewl, dood". When you see a "smiley face" profile on an equalizer. That is anything but neutral. That is why some folks tend to favor mid-bass rich speakers like JBLs and the like. Neutral bass never sounds "heavy" or "bloated". It is sensed as much as heard. The same is true of the opposite extreme. Some folks (like one in this thread) perceive more treble to be better treble or "improved clarity". Such is truly not the case. Truly neutral systems sound almost dark until real HF content comes along. Where it emerges from a totally black background and shows its beauty. Speaker manufacturers have been playing against these perceptions for years. The extremely popular JBL L-100 (or pro 4310) exhibited carefully placed peaks around 55 hz and 5 khz as graphed here (http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/pro-speakers/1978-4311/page03.jpg) by JBL. Fun for good 'ol rock n roll? Sure. Neutral? Not!

My forest of bass traps in the main listening room helps to render flat bass response (+/- 1.5 db from 25 hz to 200 hz).

rw

[E-Stat]

If I correctly recall, Flloyd Toole demonstrated in his well-controlled experiments is that inexperience and experienced listeners both preferred the same qualities in a speaker, and select the same speakers as best, (albeit the experienced users came to their conclusions more quickly).
Think about that conclusion for a moment. Apply what you know about the way the speaker market has been for the past thirty years or so and ask yourself whether or not the market supports or refutes that assertion. Can you think of any other audio component where there is greater variety in the way they perform? Does the guy who prefers an Altec A-7 or Klipsch Cornwall look for the same qualities as one who prefers a Magico Mini or a Maggie? What do you think?


...did I construe from E-Stat's comments that he attributes this to "inexperienced" listeners?
Using typical short term audio cowboy comparisons, yes. ESS speakers were clearly in the "West Coast" sound category and not known for their neutrality.

rw

[poppachubby]

When you go to a typical big box retailer (Best Buy, Fry's, etc), what kind of sound do you hear? Tipped up bass and treble. Especially the upper bass. Boom. Sizzle. "Like, totally kewl, dood". When you see a "smiley face" profile on an equalizer. That is anything but neutral. That is why some folks tend to favor mid-bass rich speakers like JBLs and the like. Neutral bass never sounds "heavy" or "bloated". It is sensed as much as heard. The same is true of the opposite extreme. Some folks (like one in this thread) perceive more treble to be better treble or "improved clarity". Such is truly not the case. Truly neutral systems sound almost dark until real HF content comes along. Where it emerges from a totally black background and shows its beauty. Speaker manufacturers have been playing against these perceptions for years. The extremely popular JBL L-100 (or pro 4310) exhibited carefully placed peaks around 55 hz and 5 khz as graphed here (http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/pro-speakers/1978-4311/page03.jpg) by JBL. Fun for good 'ol rock n roll? Sure. Neutral? Not!

My forest of bass traps in the main listening room helps to render flat bass response (+/- 1.5 db from 25 hz to 200 hz).

rw

My "rock n roll smile" is extremely subtle and right now, has zero settings for the treble. Personally, I find bass capability a way to dial in a nice warm tone. Nothing excessive, but boosted to add warmth to what I'm hearing. I am also partial to bass as I am a bass guitar player.

That said, I enjoy presence but not boom. Right now, I am doing alot of my listening through my computer's card into my dac. I am using a 2.1 concept by way of an RCA A/V receiver, 2 JBL front sattelites and a KLH sub. I am 50/50 headphones to speakers. This set up serves practical purposes, 1) listening while on the comp and 2) low levels/headphones because kids are asleep.

I am REALLY enjoying this arrangement, so I plugged in my TT as well. I find I am able to dial in a really nice, "natural" sound that's super fun at the same time.

What's the point to all of this blathering? I am curious what you feel the key component is to gaining natural sound. This question is loaded, so how about, do you rely more on your amp, source or speakers to achieve your goal?

[3db]

Funny to hear Technics, Yamaha and Radio Shack in the same paragraph as DBT.

Actually, the Rat Shack SPL meter has a good rep. :p There are a few other Rat Shack products of yester year that also have a good rep as well.

[poppachubby]

Actually, the Rat Shack SPL meter has a good rep. :p There are a few other Rat Shack products of yester year that also have a good rep as well.

I am presently using a Realistic EQ which was originally sold by "Rat-Shack". No shame here...

http://forums.audioreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6108&stc=1&d=1254505175

[Feanor]

Think about that conclusion for a moment. Apply what you know about the way the speaker market has been for the past thirty years or so and ask yourself whether or not the market supports or refutes that assertion. Can you think of any other audio component where there is greater variety in the way they perform? Does the guy who prefers an Altec A-7 or Klipsch Cornwall look for the same qualities as one who prefers a Magico Mini or a Maggie? What do you think?


Using typical short term audio cowboy comparisons, yes. ESS speakers were clearly in the "West Coast" sound category and not known for their neutrality.

rw

Well, ESS' testing is more suspect than Toole's maybe, on account of likely "audio cowboy" aspect. (I remember thinking for a while that JBLs' West Coast sound as were great, however that interval lasted only a few weeks for me.)

What I'm really getting at is that you can't just dismiss scientifically sound, empiracal results on subjective bases. You have to find a flaw in the design or in the actual measurement. Then you have to prove that you get different results if these flaws are corrected.

Toole's results are empirical and scientifically sound. If you want to refute them, you need to demonstate that what Toole tests measure things less that the sum of everything important in a speaker. OK, perhaps you can do that.

Toole's testing basically relied on monopolar speakers that worked OK at a certain distance from surrounding boundaries, etc. that applied during the testing. I believe it was you that pointed out that this precludes dipole planar speakers for example, or say, Audio Notes that have unusual placement requirements. Fine, but then you have to conduct tests that disprove his conclusions when dipole speakers are provided for.

Of course it's true for any DBT, (or SBT), that the results are only valid under the test conditions that prevail.

[emaidel]

I'm confused, Emaidel. What are you saying? Did I miss paragraph or something? Sounds to me that you're saying the ESS PS-1 were "better" only because people preferred them, but somehow they weren't better because they were up against the likes of AR, et al..




What I was trying to illustrate was that by using a carefully controlled and administered DBT to provide legitimate results as to which speaker sounds better than another often generates bizarre findings, and because of this, a DBT is hardly the most appropriate, or accurate, device to determine which product is/sounds better than another. The ESS PS-1 was hardly an "accurate reproducer," nor was it even a very good speaker. It had the characteristically dipped middle, boomy bottom and sizzling high end that lots of people liked (not me) at the time, and typically sold at a discount for only $99.95.. That it was selected by a margin of more than 3 to 1 over the much, much better (but still pretty awful, and horribly overpriced) Bose 901 was used by ESS to promote the "proof" that it was the better speaker, based on the scientifcally culled results of the DBT. The truth of the matter was something else altogether.

And so, it is my belief that a DBT to prove whether or not the Hi-Fi Tuning fuse works or doesn't, won't necessarily prove anything. I believe they work, EStat believes they do, and so does Stereophile. That's good enough for me.

[emaidel]

ESS speakers were clearly in the "West Coast" sound category and not known for their neutrality.



I worked for ESS for two years - 1979-1981 - and could have had anything the company made for free. I had my Dahlquist DQ-10's at the time and didn't think any ESS speaker came even close, and so never took advantage of the offer. Fortunately, from a sales standpoint, most ESS dealers weren't Dahlquist dealers, and there was a large market for the "sizzle and boom" sound of an ESS model.

During that time period, ESS purchased Dynaco, and made several standard 2 and 3-way speakers under the Dynaco brand name, none with Heil Air Motion Transformers (ESS's claim to fame). Several of the company's engineers confided to me one day that the most accurate speakers the company ever made were the Dynaco, and not the ESS brand.

[E-Stat]

Toole's results are empirical and scientifically sound. If you want to refute them, you need to demonstate that what Toole tests measure things less that the sum of everything important in a speaker.
Let me see if I understand your point. Do you really need a carefully controlled empirical test to determine that an Altec A-7 sounds significantly different from a Revel Salon? Or do you really think that what someone really likes about a theatre horn system is exactly the same quality that someone else really likes about a tower based monitor? C'mon!

Tests prove what they prove on that which was tested by who was tested. Based on his collection of "monkey coffin" monopole dynamic speakers, perhaps the criteria is similar. On the other hand, his tests haven't begun to compare the vastly different kinds of speakers on the market including horns and various planars that have different characteristics and performance trade offs Even within Toole's (former) Harman International group, Revel speakers are voiced differently than are JBLs.

http://cdn3.ioffer.com/img/item/979/060/37/7qZdlXoAV352Euh.jpg vs. http://www.jbl.com/resources//Brands/JBL/Products/ProductImages/en-US/1400%20ARRAY%20BG/1400%20ARRAY%20BG_IMG1_450X350.GIF

I don't buy that conclusion for a second when applied to the market in general. Otherwise, there would be no Magnepan. There would be no Quad. There would be no Klipsch. There would be no Avant Garde. And so on and so on.

rw

[E-Stat]

and there was a large market for the "sizzle and boom" sound of an ESS model.
As it remains today with certain JBLs, Cerwin-Vega, Klipsch, etc. :)

rw

[Feanor]

Let me see if I understand your point. Do you really need a carefully controlled empirical test to determine that an Altec A-7 sounds significantly different from a Revel Salon? Or do you really think that what someone really likes about a theatre horn system is exactly the same quality that someone else really likes about a tower based monitor? C'mon! ...
No, but I didn't exactly inply that. Toole was talking about test group averages, not particular individual preferences.


...
Tests prove what they prove on that which was tested by who was tested. Based on his collection of "monkey coffin" monopole dynamic speakers, perhaps the criteria is similar. On the other hand, his tests haven't begun to compare the vastly different kinds of speakers on the market including horns and various planars that have different characteristics and performance trade offs Even within Toole's (former) Harman International group, Revel speakers are voiced differently than are JBLs.

[Revel] vs. [JBL horn]


Revel is designed according to Toole criteria, the JBL horn is not. For that matter the latter's basic was design happened long before Toole came to Harmon International.


...
I don't buy that conclusion for a second when applied to the market in general. Otherwise, there would be no Magnepan. There would be no Quad. There would be no Klipsch. There would be no Avant Garde. And so on and so on.

rw
Fair enough. After all you're talking to a Maggie owner in my case, not a "monkey coffin" owner.

[E-Stat]

Nothing excessive, but boosted to add warmth to what I'm hearing. I am also partial to bass as I am a bass guitar player.
Nothing wrong with choosing your favorite tone since there really isn't the notion of "correct" with electric instruments. It would be different, however, with an acoustical string bass. I like the taut, well defined styles of guys like Stanley Clarke (on fretless) and Yes' Chris Squire. Who do you like?


I am curious what you feel the key component is to gaining natural sound. This question is loaded, so how about, do you rely more on your amp, source or speakers to achieve your goal?
First of all, everything matters to an extent. For an overall factor, my answer depends upon the range. For the low end, it is dominated by the speaker and room (hopefully treated). It is only when mid and upper bass peaks are tamed that one hears good bass definition and true first octave extension. For me, there is nothing like the

For me, top end smoothness and true resolution are dominated more by the electronics than by the driver. The upper three octaves contain all the harmonic sins of everything that precedes it. I am especially sensitive to the hard, edgy and thin signature of mediocre electronics and the influence of untrapped RFI. It is fatiguing to the ear and robs the beauty of the delicacy of instruments that live in the uppermost frequencies. The solution begins with power conditioning at the source and continues with using few and simple amplification stages. My vintage system is an example of an eminently smooth, if not super extended system using a double pair of New Advents speakers. Their tweeters have virtually no response above about 15 kHz. It is the source and electronics that make the day. A Pioneer Elite changer is used as transport to a Manley DAC using a tube output stage that drives a Threshold Stasis amp running pure class A into the power levels at which I listen. Here we have a minimal number of stages (no preamp) using low dielectric constant interconnects along with source and DAC running through a power conditioner and amp using a JPS Labs power cord. Low level resolution is superb. Like the main system, it might sound a touch dull on top initially but is devoid of the false brightness found with many systems. True HF content comes through clearly and softly.

rw

[poppachubby]

Nothing wrong with choosing your favorite tone since there really isn't the notion of "correct" with electric instruments. It would be different, however, with an acoustical string bass. I like the taut, well defined styles of guys like Stanley Clarke (on fretless) and Yes' Chris Squire. Who do you like?


First of all, everything matters to an extent. For an overall factor, my answer depends upon the range. For the low end, it is dominated by the speaker and room (hopefully treated). It is only when mid and upper bass peaks are tamed that one hears good bass definition and true first octave extension. For me, there is nothing like the

For me, top end smoothness and true resolution are dominated more by the electronics than by the driver. The upper three octaves contain all the harmonic sins of everything that precedes it. I am especially sensitive to the hard, edgy and thin signature of mediocre electronics and the influence of untrapped RFI. It is fatiguing to the ear and robs the beauty of the delicacy of instruments that live in the uppermost frequencies. The solution begins with power conditioning at the source and continues with using few and simple amplification stages. My vintage system is an example of an eminently smooth, if not super extended system using a double pair of New Advents speakers. Their tweeters have virtually no response above about 15 kHz. It is the source and electronics that make the day. A Pioneer Elite changer is used as transport to a Manley DAC using a tube output stage that drives a Threshold Stasis amp running pure class A into the power levels at which I listen. Here we have a minimal number of stages (no preamp) using low dielectric constant interconnects along with source and DAC running through a power conditioner and amp using a JPS Labs power cord. Low level resolution is superb. Like the main system, it might sound a touch dull on top initially but is devoid of the false brightness found with many systems. True HF content comes through clearly and softly.

rw

The Manley dac, is it everything it seems to be E-Stat? Is there anywhere to go from there?

[hifitommy]

it takes time to train your ears for listening tests. the training should be listening to live instruments, un-amploified AND amplified so one knows what these things sound like in a live situation.

after the training, the JBLs wont sound like the real thing just as they never have. it will be identifiable by the listener however.

ESSs DBTs involved many untrained listeners who selected what they preferred based on listening to other systems that likely didnt resemble the original sound accurately.

until my ears had been educated, i had no idea WHY speakers sounded so different. with the help of friends and a couple of very knowledgeable salesmen, i was abel to make decisions for myself that werent way off base. i am still learning after 37 years of this hobby.

[JoeE SP9]

Well you know the old expression, a fool and his money is easily parted. Instead of waisting money on such nonsense, put into the the upgrade of gear or room acoustics. The single biggest player in sound next to the speakers are room acoustics. Treating the room would have a much further reaching affect.

If I could do a proper DBT test I would. Last year at this time I exchanged out a Technics DX940 receiever for a Yamaha RX-V1800 and I thought I heard tighter bass and a more open soundstage. But the problem is, it took me 3 hours to exchange the receivers and any audio memory accurcay is shot in an around the 2 minute mark. What I would have loved was to be able to the DBT test to see if I actually heard a difference or just perceived to hear one. The only difference I do notice without a DBT test is that the Yamaha can keep on going in power levels where the Technics was running out of gas. This was observed through a Radio Shack SPL meter and I took note of the readings. Other than that, I don't trust my hearing becuase I also hear with my eyes and the RX-V1800 is beautiful sight in my mind.

I take umbrage at the suggestion I'm a fool. I have been involved in this hobby for almost 43 years. Along the way I picked up a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science. I am quite familiar with how and why electrically operated devices operate. I have designed gear and modify gear. I have participated in SBT and DBT testing. Both test types raise more questions than they answer.
It has been my experience that tweak detractors usually have several things in common. A few of those are
1. A complete refusal to try any tweak they don't believe.
2. A call for DBT's.
3. An almost universal use of AV receivers.
As I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."

I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.

[poppachubby]

I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.


hahahaha, no "we" don't. I'm one of those wee guys with the modest gear. I think this is why humility is somewhat important around here, particularily when your years of experience and quality of gear are lacking. I won't let anyone chit on my head, but I also know my place in the food chain. It's all good, I plan to have it all down the road.

BTW Joe, check out my new thread in the analog section, opinions on either item?

[JohnMichael]

3. An almost universal use of AV receivers.
As I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."

I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.



JoeE very good points and I wish I could give you more rep points. Once again I must say you made a very good post.

[Smokey]

IAs I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."


That is fine and all, but if you look at other side of equation, what is missing is common sense. “Try the tweak or shut up” argument is a flawed concept as it undermined the achievement we have made in science and electronic in last 100 years.

We all know that jumping off a cliff will kill you. But if you go by above argument, then we all say that if you haven’t jump, shut up and don’t say it will kill you until you try it.

The same goes for audio. There are so many snake oil out there that you have call them out without trying them, or 4 years of education you have received in college is irrelevant.

Tweaks like HI-FI fuses seem to be more of cosmetic enhancement than anything else, so dismissing them without trying them does not necessarily make the conclusion invalid.

[3db]

I take umbrage at the suggestion I'm a fool. I have been involved in this hobby for almost 43 years. Along the way I picked up a Bachelors Degree in Electrical Engineering and a Masters in Computer Science. I am quite familiar with how and why electrically operated devices operate. I have designed gear and modify gear. I have participated in SBT and DBT testing. Both test types raise more questions than they answer.
It has been my experience that tweak detractors usually have several things in common. A few of those are
1. A complete refusal to try any tweak they don't believe.
2. A call for DBT's.
3. An almost universal use of AV receivers.
As I said in an earlier post, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Insted of calling any tweak snake oil, try it yourself and then tell others your conclusions. I'm more inclined to listen to someone who has first hand experience. When you condemn something without knowledge it benefits no one not even yourself."


I could be just as rude and disrespectful by telling detractors "Get better gear, then you could hear what others hear". However you guys don't like to hear that.

1.) I'm all for acoustic tweeking in rooms. That would include speaker placement as well. Better isolation or decoupling of a turntable from vibrations. These are all measurable items. If you mod the values of capacitance, inductance, or resistsance, of course you may hear something different. But again that is measureable

2.) A DBT test?? Your point? So? Look at my point 3 below. At least I'm open enough to say that what I may perceive to hear is actually governed by other influences such as sight or knowing in advance what I'm using. Hardly objective in my books.

3.) I distrust my first impressions of my Yamaha over the Panasonic becuase I was going on audio memory and I was not able to switch back and forth quickly enough between the two receivers to actually hear a difference. I also fail to understand your point three about using receivers.

But fuses, expensive cables where the parameters such as resistance, capacitance and inducatance are so small, ( less than .001% different in values compared to cheaper brands ) that it is impossible to hear that difference. Humanly impossible. Don't throw out your education based on subjective results. Floyd Toole and the people that believe in his methodolgy and successful results are the only people I trust to give me an obejective results. All of teh other people in magazines who report subjective results about audio cables and interconnects and other tweaks which are not based on scientific principles in the audio industry are perpetrating fraud as far as I'm concerned. I beleive you that you think you can hear a difference. I think your claim is sincere. (I'm not lumping you into the category of these audio magazine critics ) but I do question your subject results.

[3db]

it takes time to train your ears for listening tests. the training should be listening to live instruments, un-amploified AND amplified so one knows what these things sound like in a live situation. .

Actually Floy Toole through experiments showed the opposite and that both seasoned listeneres and noobs arrived at the same conclusion, only it took noobs a little longer to reach the same conclusion.

[3db]

What I was trying to illustrate was that by using a carefully controlled and administered DBT to provide legitimate results as to which speaker sounds better than another often generates bizarre findings, and because of this, a DBT is hardly the most appropriate, or accurate, device to determine which product is/sounds better than another. The ESS PS-1 was hardly an "accurate reproducer," nor was it even a very good speaker. It had the characteristically dipped middle, boomy bottom and sizzling high end that lots of people liked (not me) at the time, and typically sold at a discount for only $99.95.. That it was selected by a margin of more than 3 to 1 over the much, much better (but still pretty awful, and horribly overpriced) Bose 901 was used by ESS to promote the "proof" that it was the better speaker, based on the scientifcally culled results of the DBT. The truth of the matter was something else altogether.

And so, it is my belief that a DBT to prove whether or not the Hi-Fi Tuning fuse works or doesn't, won't necessarily prove anything. I believe they work, EStat believes they do, and so does Stereophile. That's good enough for me.

Why would you use a DBT test to choose something as subjective as speakers. Using that arguemnet to fault a DBT doesn't hold much merit becuase liking the sound of a speaker is subjective. Are you going to buy a speaker based on the review of an audio critic or are you going to sit down and listen with your own ears to see what you like?
A conductor (of the size of a fuse) does not affect sound. It possess no quantative properties that alters the signal travelling through it. Elecltrical signal into fuse is the same as electrical signal out of the fuse.... so how can there be a change in sound? Unlike fuses, speakers impart both an acoustic and electrical signature on signal travelling through it which makes speakers sound differnet from one another. Wether you like the signature is subjective. Hence using your ESS exmaple is not very poor example of discounting DBT tests.

[E-Stat]

The Manley dac, is it everything it seems to be E-Stat? Is there anywhere to go from there?
Anywhere to go? Absolutely. Mine is the relatively modest Sigma Delta unit from the early 90s. I bought it used for $500. There is a pic of it in the vintage system labeled "Ariston RD-11s/SME 3009". It is the black box on top of an older Toshiba transport in the shelf below the table.

Their current version is far better with balanced outputs, 24/96 capability, far larger and separate power supply, remote, etc.

Wave DAC (http://manleylabs.com/containerpages/wave2496.html)

rw

[E-Stat]

Actually Floy Toole through experiments showed the opposite and that both seasoned listeneres and noobs arrived at the same conclusion, only it took noobs a little longer to reach the same conclusion.
You have thoroughly mangled the conclusions of Toole's speaker preference tests using box speakers. Tommy is referring to the greater ability to discern audible differences, not preferences, with any audio component. By all means, reference your assertion.

rw

[E-Stat]

Why would you use a DBT test to choose something as subjective as speakers.
Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html) More (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html)on same topic.


Are you going to buy a speaker based on the review of an audio critic or are you going to sit down and listen with your own ears to see what you like?
Both. There are a couple of trusted ears I know who can tell me quite a bit about a speaker's performance. Having said that, their preference is not always my preference. I know exactly what Harry's Pearson's preferences are and they differ from mine. On the other hand, he is capable of discerning fine differences that I alone cannot. I have on more than one occasion narrowed down my component selection based upon his observational input (and hearing his systems).



A conductor (of the size of a fuse) does not affect sound.
You continue to demonstrate simplistic speculation. Like those who look at cables and say they have no sound, you completely miss the big picture. The big picture is that cables and connectors are part of a system with the devices at either end affected by the quality and nature of the conductors.

rw

[3db]

You have thoroughly mangled the conclusions of Toole's speaker preference tests using box speakers. Tommy is referring to the greater ability to discern audible differences, not preferences, with any audio component. By all means, reference your assertion.

rw

I have mangled nothing. Look again. :)

[E-Stat]

I have mangled nothing. Look again. :)
It would seem the meaning of the word "preference" eludes you. Actually, I'm watching a video of the MLL downloaded from Olive's blog right now. Watch it yourself. It repeatedly speaks about "hearing the kinds of problems found in speakers" to determine preference. The training tools measure the ability to discern FR changes. Preference does not in any way require or infer an equal ability to hear all that is present in a recording. The preference concept in itself is supported only when the choices are limited to very similar designs, i..e box speakers vs. dipoles or horns. It is easy to prove the differing levels of acuity among listeners. Try this (http://www.klippel-listeningtest.de/lt/default.html) out and tell us how you do. At the end, you will be graded and given the results along with the results of others. Screen cap that for us. You say you like DBTs. Here's one for you. Good luck!

rw

[3db]

Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html) More (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html)on same topic.


You continue to demonstrate simplistic speculation. Like those who look at cables and say they have no sound, you completely miss the big picture. The big picture is that cables and connectors are part of a system with the devices at either end affected by the quality and nature of the conductors.

rw

If you understood the effects of frequency based capacitance and inductance, your redundant responses of simplistuic speculation would stop. But your posts continue you to reinforce that you really have no clue about physics, acoutsics and engineerin principles which just strengthens yout lemming like beliefs. You just don't understand physics.

[Feanor]

Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html) More (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html)on same topic.

Both. There are a couple of trusted ears I know who can tell me quite a bit about a speaker's performance. Having said that, their preference is not always my preference. I know exactly what Harry's Pearson's preferences are and they differ from mine. On the other hand, he is capable of discerning fine differences that I alone cannot. I have on more than one occasion narrowed down my component selection based upon his observational input (and hearing his systems).
....
rw
It's interesting that the performance (low test-to-test variance) of trained listeners is much higher than other listener categories. "Trained" here means trained by Harmon for speaker evaluation. The performance of "audio reviewers" was much lower than the trained and much closer to that of young, persumably inexperienced college students.

How much confidence should we put on the opinions of audio reviewers?? Not much maybe, even it we think we know their preferences. (Of course the performance of such luminaries as Harry Pearson might fair exceed that average of the category.)

[E-Stat]

If you understood the effects of frequency based capacitance and inductance, your redundant responses of simplistuic speculation would stop. But your posts continue you to reinforce that you really have no clue about physics, acoutsics and engineerin principles which just strengthens yout lemming like beliefs. You just don't understand physics.
It is not I who speculates. I report my observations. You've got another word to look up. For heaven's sake man, can't you spell yourself out of a paper bag?

So, your conclusions consist of speculation AND empty hot air. I didn't think you'd be willing to so easily prove yourself wrong regarding the ability of one's hearing - despite your claim earlier. My guess is that you would do about... say -18db. Maybe a pinch better. No surprise! :)

rw

[poppachubby]

Wow E-Stat, what a cool test, I did alot better than I thought. My hearing is quite poor due to exposure as a musician when I was younger. I took a sample of how far I got, I didn't complete the whole thing as I have to go to work soon.

I'm unable to post the page of my results. I was successful to -30. I failed -36/37 and failed back to -27. I then was succesful back up to -30 again.

How did you do E? I used my speakers, do you think headphones would give an edge?

[E-Stat]

How much confidence should we put on the opinions of audio reviewers?? Not much maybe, even it we think we know their preferences. (Of course the performance of such luminaries as Harry Pearson might fair exceed that average of the category.)
So, who are they talking about? Peter Aczel? The guys at Consumer Reports? Julian Hirsch? How can anyone know the answer without defining that term. I can guarantee you than Harry Pearson and Dr. John Cooledge hear musical detail far beyond what I can. Although I'm a lot closer than I was when I first met them when I was 19. :)

rw

[E-Stat]

I was successful to -30. I failed -36/37 and failed back to -27. I then was succesful back up to -30 again.
Those are excellent results. While this is not a conclusive test, it is nevertheless a particular measure. I wish I could take it using the main system which is far more transparent than my laptop. :)


How did you do E? I used my speakers, do you think headphones would give an edge?
Your phones might help.

Previous post. (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=233018&highlight=audiophile+test#post233018)

rw

[bfalls]

Yours is the last word.

rw


?????

[E-Stat]

?????
Perhaps you didn't notice that the thread has included some discussion points other than fuses.

rw

[poppachubby]

1.) I'm all for acoustic tweeking in rooms. That would include speaker placement as well. Better isolation or decoupling of a turntable from vibrations. These are all measurable items. If you mod the values of capacitance, inductance, or resistsance, of course you may hear something different. But again that is measureable

2.) A DBT test?? Your point? So? Look at my point 3 below. At least I'm open enough to say that what I may perceive to hear is actually governed by other influences such as sight or knowing in advance what I'm using. Hardly objective in my books.

3.) I distrust my first impressions of my Yamaha over the Panasonic becuase I was going on audio memory and I was not able to switch back and forth quickly enough between the two receivers to actually hear a difference. I also fail to understand your point three about using receivers.

But fuses, expensive cables where the parameters such as resistance, capacitance and inducatance are so small, ( less than .001% different in values compared to cheaper brands ) that it is impossible to hear that difference. Humanly impossible. Don't throw out your education based on subjective results. Floyd Toole and the people that believe in his methodolgy and successful results are the only people I trust to give me an obejective results. All of the other people in magazines who report subjective results about audio cables and interconnects and other tweaks which are not based on scientific principles in the audio industry are perpetrating fraud as far as I'm concerned. I beleive you that you think you can hear a difference. I think your claim is sincere. (I'm not lumping you into the category of these audio magazine critics ) but I do question your subject results.

Funny, I just linked this to another thread recently. Malcolm Hawksford completed the most thorough and convincing study on audio inter-connects to date. This was done in 1985.

You will see from his findings, that there is much science to cables, connectivity and such. These companies and magazines that you say are pulling our strings, are not doing so at the level you think they are. The truth is out there. It's not that expensive, fancy interconnects don't do what they say they will. It's that there are other, arguably better ways to get the best connection, and more importantly, cheaper! This leads anyone searching hard enough, to solid core.

I'm not sure if from your statements, you don't believe that there's a difference from a Radio Shack analog connect to a Audio Research for example. I can assure you there is, and it's quite audible, best described as brightness. I can't say for sure, but I think this is the point that E-Stat may have been trying to make with his "test". Perhaps your hearing is not sensitive enough to pick up on these improvements. Anyhow, that's assuming you don't see any value in a "better" inter-connect.

I just spent the better part of a week researching all of this (thanks John Michael). Enjoy!!

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/1095cable/

[E-Stat]

I can't say for sure, but I think this is the point that E-Stat may have been trying to make with his "test".
Not exactly. My experience suggests that false brightness is primary a function of untrapped RFI coming from a number of sources. Effective shielding is the best answer for ICs. My JPS Labs ICs are shielded with copper jackets that are so stiff, they hold a given shape like a solid wire! Conversely, low performance speaker cables can cause a rolled off top end with some speakers. Using Audioholics measurements for zip cord, the values are as follows:

L=.16uF/ft
C=25pf/ft
R=2mohm/ft

My JPS Labs speaker cables differ greatly in the two metrics that are most important with electrostats

L=.06uf/ft
C=20pf/ft
R=2mohm/ft

Increased Inductance = 166%
Increased Capacitance = 25%

In this case, higher inductance rolls off the top end response in my system.

rw

[3db]

Why use a double blind test test? To determine what objective measurements correlate to listener preferences. Here's Toole's colleague Sean Olive on the topic: Olive. (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html) More (http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html)on same topic.


You continue to demonstrate simplistic speculation. Like those who look at cables and say they have no sound, you completely miss the big picture. The big picture is that cables and connectors are part of a system with the devices at either end affected by the quality and nature of the conductors.

rw

If you understood the effects of frequency based capacitance and inductance, your redundant responses of simplistuic speculation would stop. But your posts continue you to reinforce that you really have no clue about physics, acoutsics and engineerin principles which just strengthens yout lemming like beliefs. You just don't understand physics.

[poppachubby]

3db, did you not see my post? Did you have a look at Hawksford's report?

[3db]

3db, did you not see my post? Did you have a look at Hawksford's report?

Sorry poppa..Windows burped and caused a repeat. Will take a look at the report. Thx for posting it.

[3db]

Not exactly. My experience suggests that false brightness is primary a function of untrapped RFI coming from a number of sources. Effective shielding is the best answer for ICs. My JPS Labs ICs are shielded with copper jackets that are so stiff, they hold a given shape like a solid wire! Conversely, low performance speaker cables can cause a rolled off top end with some speakers. Using Audioholics measurements for zip cord, the values are as follows:

L=.16uF/ft
C=25pf/ft
R=2mohm/ft

My JPS Labs speaker cables differ greatly in the two metrics that are most important with electrostats

L=.06uf/ft
C=20pf/ft
R=2mohm/ft

Increased Inductance = 166%
Increased Capacitance = 25%

In this case, higher inductance rolls off the top end response in my system.

rw


Ok.. lets test your understanding of these parameters. What are the cable lengthes associated with these parameters? Do the paramters change with the length of cable? What frequency range were these parameters derived from?

[E-Stat]

What are the cable lengthes associated with these parameters? Do the paramters change with the length of cable?
You must have a great sense of humor. Now, those are funny questions! Have you ever been interviewed by Jay Leno? :)


What frequency range were these parameters derived from?
It was not stated with either the Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/blue-jeans-10awg-speaker-cable-5t00up/blue-jeans-cable-design) recommendation by DellaSalla nor by JPS Labs.

rw

[bfalls]

You must have a great sense of humor. Now, those are funny questions! Have you ever been interviewed by Jay Leno? :)


It was not stated with either the Audioholics (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/cables/blue-jeans-10awg-speaker-cable-5t00up/blue-jeans-cable-design) recommendation by DellaSalla nor by JPS Labs.

rw

A little funny since you provide the specs "/ft", so will change with length. What will change with frequency is the inductive and capacitive reactance.

[3db]

A little funny since you provide the specs "/ft", so will change with length. What will change with frequency is the inductive and capacitive reactance.

Hey there. Judging my the answer I received from Estat....
How difficult is it to admit when one doesn't know. Not everyone becomes/is an electrical engineer. I don't get it. Rather than learn, snide remarks are made to hide the fact.

I even question my own hearing when it comes to the Yamaha/Technics receiver change I went through. I thought I heard a difference but unless I can hear a level matched test where the receivers can be rapidly interchanged every minute or so...I won't stand by my first impression.

I would like to standby my 1st impression as the Yamaha is a much more capable receiver in terms of features and power but I'm not going to let that aspect cloud my judgement. I'd rather the SBT test.

[Feanor]

So, who are they talking about? Peter Aczel? The guys at Consumer Reports? Julian Hirsch? How can anyone know the answer without defining that term. I can guarantee you than Harry Pearson and Dr. John Cooledge hear musical detail far beyond what I can. Although I'm a lot closer than I was when I first met them when I was 19. :)

rw

Famous Julian Hirsch joke: "He never heard a component he didn't like."

[E-Stat]

How difficult is it to admit when one doesn't know... I don't get it. Rather than learn, snide remarks are made to hide the fact.
Indeed, you don't get it. The answer, Mr. Science is found in the post where I state the metrics. At the expense of stating that which should be blatantly obvious, the answer is "one foot". Do you understand the concept of "per foot"? That's the way cable manufacturers like Belden, et. al. specify their metrics. Here's (http://www.josephelectronics.com/Belden_by_JE/Video_Cables/1505A.pdf) an example. Note the "electrical characteristic" section. Sometimes, when the value is so small, a metric is specified in a different unit of measure like "per 1000 ft". Because you asked such a profoundly stupid question, I chose to use humor in my reply to deflect and not rub your nose in such ignorance. Unfortunately, instead of saying "Oh, duh - I see it now", you continue to demonstrate that you are utterly clueless. BTW, I find that I incorrectly specified the inductance. Those metrics should be expressed in micro henries, not farads.

Normally, I wouldn't make the following statements because the concept, like my earlier post <i>should</i> be patently apparent, but I'm now convinced your next question would prompt it. If you have a two foot run of either cable noted you would multiply the per foot metric by <i>two.</i> If you have a ten foot run of either cable, you would multiply the per foot metric by <i>ten</i>. Do you understand?

Sheesh!

rw

[bfalls]

Hey there. Judging my the answer I received from Estat....
How difficult is it to admit when one doesn't know. Not everyone becomes/is an electrical engineer. I don't get it. Rather than learn, snide remarks are made to hide the fact.

I even question my own hearing when it comes to the Yamaha/Technics receiver change I went through. I thought I heard a difference but unless I can hear a level matched test where the receivers can be rapidly interchanged every minute or so...I won't stand by my first impression.

I would like to standby my 1st impression as the Yamaha is a much more capable receiver in terms of features and power but I'm not going to let that aspect cloud my judgement. I'd rather the SBT test.

Sorry 3db. I quoted the wrong posting. This was in response to you answer about the parameters of E-stat's wires. I figured you didn't noticed he provided the parameters "/ft". No offense intended.

I like the Yamahas. I've had an R9 stereo receiver and two of their AV receivers (RX-V2095 (still own), RX-V2092) and have an M-65 A/AB power amp. They're workhorses. Very durable, handle low impedance loads, more surround formats than anyone. They documented parameters at many famous venues and incorporated them into their formats. The only other processors at the time with configurable formats were from Lexicon.

I don't believe they are as transparent as some, but definitely more than hold their own. They're #2 or #3, in my top mid-fi receivers, which include Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Marantz and possibly Harmon Kardon. I haven't had much experience with the Pioneers, I've been more of a fan of their video gear and read/heard good things from others.

[poppachubby]

I don't believe they are as transparent as some, but definitely more than hold their own. They're #2 or #3, in my top mid-fi receivers, which include Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Marantz and possibly Harmon Kardon. I haven't had much experience with the Pioneers, I've been more of a fan of their video gear and read/heard good things from others.


Apparently your experience is limited with Harmon Kardan...possibly?

[bfalls]

Apparently your experience is limited with Harmon Kardan...possibly?

Yes, limited experience. I've looked and heard at a few, but have read good things. I didn't find the build quality as good as the Denons, Yamahas or Onkyos. I've heard and seen enough not to count them out, but feel they would be in the top 8 or 10.

Just as with the Pioneer, not a lot of experience. I owned one which came with the purchase of a Pioneer Pro100 TV, but didn't fell it was as good as the receivers I had, so sold it to my brother.

[poppachubby]

Yes, limited experience. I've looked and heard at a few, but have read good things. I didn't find the build quality as good as the Denons, Yamahas or Onkyos. I've heard and seen enough not to count them out, but feel they would be in the top 8 or 10.

Just as with the Pioneer, not a lot of experience. I owned one which came with the purchase of a Pioneer Pro100 TV, but didn't fell it was as good as the receivers I had, so sold it to my brother.

Speaking solely on high end models, I can assure you that HK's build quality far exceeds Yamaha, Onkyo and Denon at that. Personally, I think Denon are a shadow of what they set out to be. I'm sure this bold statement will have a few whipped into an audio rage.

[3db]

Speaking solely on high end models, I can assure you that HK's build quality far exceeds Yamaha, Onkyo and Denon at that. Personally, I think Denon are a shadow of what they set out to be. I'm sure this bold statement will have a few whipped into an audio rage.


Build quality IHO has to with amount of returns, defective units etc and nothing to do about how powerful its amps are. If you dig hard enough, you'll find on per capita basis that Yamaha is the most solid of the receivers in terms of build quality and were up until recently, the envy of the industry. I say recently becuase I'm not impressed at all with Yamaha's latest offerings have the same advertised power but with chassis weighing in some case, 10lbs less.

[hifitommy]

the item that lasts forever and sounds mediocre or the one that sounds great and needs service now and again? and just where do i find this data?

[3db]

the item that lasts forever and sounds mediocre or the one that sounds great and needs service now and again? and just where do i find this data?

Don't confuse sound quality over build quailty..two totally different beasts. NAD has a much a stouter amplifier section than Yamaha but unfortunately NAD cannot even come close to touching Yamaha in terms of relaibiltiy; reliabiltity having a direct relationship to build quaility.

I doubt very much in a controlled non sighted listening test that you are able to distinguish between two receivers operarting well within their power band through the same speakers with volume levels matched. No use having high end if its in the shop all teh time getting repaired.

The only high end amp I would ever consider purchasing is a Bryston because unlike the other "boutique" brands out there, they test their products rigerously through temperatire extremes and offfer a 20 year warranty. No other brand comes even close to touching Bryston.

[JohnMichael]

The only high end amp I would ever consider purchasing is a Bryston because unlike the other "boutique" brands out there, they test their products rigerously through temperatire extremes and offfer a 20 year warranty. No other brand comes even close to touching Bryston.


Wow a twenty year warranty on a product you may not like how it sounds. I have a question do you think all electronics sound the same?

[3db]

Wow a twenty year warranty on a product you may not like how it sounds. I have a question do you think all electronics sound the same?

I think all amplfiers mated to the same speaker level matched (speaker that does not place huge demands on the amp) and driven well within their power envelope sound the same. The differences become apparent when the amplifier has to work..ie driving low impedance or highly reactive loads. Thats when the differences become noticeable. I fail to see how two amps with the same frequency response curves, with the same + or - db limit driven full spectrum can sound different from one another when driven well within their power envelope and through the same speakers level matched. If they do sound different, then there's a quantifiable and measureable parameer that describes thatbehaviour.

[poppachubby]

[QUOTE]Don't confuse sound quality over build quailty..two totally different beasts. Perhaps, however build quality ultimately affects the sound quality.


I doubt very much in a controlled non sighted listening test that you are able to distinguish between two receivers operarting well within their power band through the same speakers with volume levels matched. No use having high end if its in the shop all teh time getting repaired.

If you are referring to Harmon Kardan, then this is an inflated statement. I can promise you that in a blind test, if I was being offered options, I would most certainly pick out differences. I have 2 HK amps, both belonged to my father before me, 1 Citizen and 1 Marantz. They all sound different and I can fully tell the difference. I may not get it right everytime, but I would do better in your blind test than you think.

As far as being in the shop all the time, I'm not even going to touch that. My HK's have been going strong for years with no issue.

No hostility here 3db, clearly there are a few who are. But I think you're jumping the gun a bit.

[poppachubby]

I think all amplfiers mated to the same speaker level matched (speaker that does not place huge demands on the amp) and driven well within their power envelope sound the same. The differences become apparent when the amplifier has to work..ie driving low impedance or highly reactive loads. Thats when the differences become noticeable. I fail to see how two amps with the same frequency response curves, with the same + or - db limit driven full spectrum can sound different from one another when driven well within their power envelope and through the same speakers level matched. If they do sound different, then there's a quantifiable and measureable parameer that describes thatbehaviour.


So, does this include a tube amp vs an SS?

[E-Stat]

If they do sound different, then there's a quantifiable and measureable parameer that describes thatbehaviour.
Its called distortion spectra. While THD is an utterly useless and misleading metric, a deeper analysis into the makeup of the distortion provides the clue. 1% second harmonic distortion is virtually inaudible while 0.1% fifth or seventh is quite noticeable. Amplifier designs vary greatly in how they distort.

Nelson Pass speaks on the topic here. (http://passlabs.com/pdf/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf)

rw

[E-Stat]

Don't confuse sound quality over build quailty..two totally different beasts.
I agree. My Audio Research, Threshold, VTL and Manley gear is hand built to instrument quality standards using military spec components. It is quite different from mass produced consumer grade receivers. The Threshold Stasis is twenty-eight years old and has only required (preemptive) replacement of the computer grade Mallory electrolytics. It is also able to drive virtually any load, reactive or otherwise with its massive output stage.


NAD has a much a stouter amplifier section than Yamaha but unfortunately NAD cannot even come close to touching Yamaha in terms of relaibiltiy; reliabiltity having a direct relationship to build quaility.

As for NAD, I must be lucky with a T763 receiver used in the HT system. It has been trouble-free for seven years.

rw

[3db]

So, does this include a tube amp vs an SS?

Nope. Solid state and tubes are different beasts all together.

[3db]

Its called distortion spectra. While THD is an utterly useless and misleading metric, a deeper analysis into the makeup of the distortion provides the clue. 1% second harmonic distortion is virtually inaudible while 0.1% fifth or seventh is quite noticeable. Amplifier designs vary greatly in how they distort.

Nelson Pass speaks on the topic here. (http://passlabs.com/pdf/articles/distortion_and_feedback.pdf)

rw

a measureable quantatative factor. Even order distortion would be harder to detect because its pleasant.....thats what gives vinyl that warmer sound,,,, odd order distortion is grating and easier to detect which would make explain your numbers.

[3db]

As for NAD, I must be lucky with a T763 receiver used in the HT system. It has been trouble-free for seven years.

rw

Thats a good thing. NAD was having major QC problems and even the salesman steered me away from NAD becuase of that. That was a few years back. Don't get me wrong, I love NAD and think they make great sounding equipment.

[3db]

[QUOTE=3db]

No hostility here 3db, clearly there are a few who are. But I think you're jumping the gun a bit.

None taken . :)

[E-Stat]

a measureable quantatative factor.
Quantitative yes, but difficult to directly correlate to perceived differences. Which is why amps sound different under dynamic conditions, i.e. playing music instead of test tones.


Even order distortion would be harder to detect because its pleasant.....thats what gives vinyl that warmer sound...
Interesting. I've never heard that association before. Why do you say pressed vinyl inherently contains even order distortion?


,,, odd order distortion is grating and easier to detect which would make explain your numbers.
I had one of these (http://crownaudio.com/pdf/legacy/D150-spec-sheet.pdf) Crown amps when I was in high school. While it was reliable, it sounded dreadful on top despite its 0.05% measured THD / IMD. Which is why I completely ignore distortion specs. In fact, my listening experience causes me to associate those numbers in reverse. Amps with exceptionally low distortion figures sound worse than those with higher numbers. Clearly, they have more stages and/or more feedback loops which either renders them hard and thin sounding (like the Crown) or unnaturally sterile (Halcro DM-38).

rw

[3db]

Interesting. I've never heard that association before. Why do you say pressed vinyl inherently contains even order distortion?

rw

http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/archive/index.php/t-449315.html

[3db]

Quantitative yes, but difficult to directly correlate to perceived differences. Which is why amps sound different under dynamic conditions, i.e. playing music instead of test tones.

I had one of these (http://crownaudio.com/pdf/legacy/D150-spec-sheet.pdf) Crown amps when I was in high school. While it was reliable, it sounded dreadful on top despite its 0.05% measured THD / IMD. Which is why I completely ignore distortion specs. In fact, my listening experience causes me to associate those numbers in reverse. Amps with exceptionally low distortion figures sound worse than those with higher numbers. Clearly, they have more stages and/or more feedback loops which either renders them hard and thin sounding (like the Crown) or unnaturally sterile (Halcro DM-38).

rw

I ignore distrotion specs once they fall below audbale detection for humans. I see no value in this magic race of .00000000000000000000005% distortion ( exageration I know) if it can't be heard below .5%

[E-Stat]

http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/archive/index.php/t-449315.html
Interesting. Not bad, but the next question would be what amplifier was used for the cutting lathe as that could affect the results. Such information was not provided. Coincidentally, Telarc Records used the big brother to my Threshold Stasis back in the 80s.

Bob Woods at cutter (http://marekspage.sslpowered.com/hifi-museum.com/pa/np/TELARC3.jpg)

rw

[E-Stat]

I ignore distrotion specs once they fall below audbale detection for humans... if it can't be heard below .5%
That's my point. Upper odd harmonic distortion can be audible at the 0.1% level. Amplifier THD specs provide zero visibility to the way the amplifier performs under dynamic conditions where the amp generates the distortion. The Crown's 0.05% figure had no bearing on real world performance with its crude, first generation Fairchild op amp and class B output stage.

rw

[hifitommy]

feet have been stomped too much and i will do this out of disrespect of the acting up by a couple of the posters here.

THEN i am going to post positive comments on the fuses REGARDLESS of what they sound like!

;^)

[3db]

feet have been stomped too much and i will do this out of disrespect of the acting up by a couple of the posters here.

THEN i am going to post positive comments on the fuses REGARDLESS of what they sound like!

;^)


you go girl!!! :))

[bfalls]

Quantitative yes, but difficult to directly correlate to perceived differences. Which is why amps sound different under dynamic conditions, i.e. playing music instead of test tones.


Interesting. I've never heard that association before. Why do you say pressed vinyl inherently contains even order distortion?


I had one of these (http://crownaudio.com/pdf/legacy/D150-spec-sheet.pdf) Crown amps when I was in high school. While it was reliable, it sounded dreadful on top despite its 0.05% measured THD / IMD. Which is why I completely ignore distortion specs. In fact, my listening experience causes me to associate those numbers in reverse. Amps with exceptionally low distortion figures sound worse than those with higher numbers. Clearly, they have more stages and/or more feedback loops which either renders them hard and thin sounding (like the Crown) or unnaturally sterile (Halcro DM-38).

rw

In our QA and A/B room at CBS Records we used Crown DC300 and DC150 as well as McIntosh amps. I thought the Mcs with higher distortion readings sounded much better than the Crowns. It didn't matter which source, 1" master tapes on Scully playback deck or 1/4" on Nakamichi cassette decks. We used several different models Mc2125s, 5150s, etc. They even used Mc40s to drive their plant intercom system. I still have a pair of the MC40s. I believe their THD is .5%.

[E-Stat]

I thought the Mcs with higher distortion readings sounded much better than the Crowns.
Yeah, that was back in the 70s when the prevailing notion espoused by guys like Julian Hirsch was that if two amps had similar output, frequency response curves, distortion and were able to drive a given load, they would all sound the same. ;)

I confess that I bought the Crown because it looked cool, had rack ears, was endorsed by pros and had more power than the H-K Citation 12 amp I was also considering. So I was 17 at the time. I got rid of it in under a year. After a short stint using powered monitors, my next amp was the considerably better sounding Audire by Julius Siknius. That was also the era ('76) when Frank Van Alstine was experimenting with beefing up power supplies. I had his FET-5 preamp (modified PAT-5) and applied the same concept to the Audire that he did to the Dynaco "Double 400". I added another 120,000 uF to the power supply via an external box and replaced the bridge with a 30A unit. That bumped it to ~100 joules or about five times that of the Crown. There was no comparison in terms of transparency and dynamic capability - even though the specs were essentially the same. It would also play for about thirty seconds after power off!

rw

[Mygaffer]

I have never been a proponent of the "if it exists, then it can be measured," or conversely, " if it cannot be measured, then it doesn't exist" mentality. How then would one measure the specific placement of instruments within a stereo image, or the breadth and depth of the soundstage? There's no denying that such a thing as a stereo image exists, and that some equipment is better than others in producing it, yet there's no way at all to effectively measure why one speaker/amplifier/etc. is better than another in reprodcing it. Nor is there a way to measure the soundstage either, yet there are enormous differences in both the width and depth of a soundstage, again depending on many of the different components within a system.

If someone here (myself, or others) claims to hear something as a result of changing a piece of equipment, or even a fuse, why can't someone who has NOT heard what we have, nor has done what we've done, simply accept such, and leave it be at that? I know what I hear, and having anyone telling me that I'm really not hearing what I know I'm hearing is rather pointless, no? What is to be gained by such an endeavor?

I know this is a really old thread but I am surprised that you would ask this question. Everyone on this forum should be very familiar with the failings of human hearing and the power of expectations. There is a very good reason people won't just accept what you've heard without some verification.

[Feanor]

I know this is a really old thread but I am surprised that you would ask this question. Everyone on this forum should be very familiar with the failings of human hearing and the power of expectations. There is a very good reason people won't just accept what you've heard without some verification.
What might sound fundamental to you, MG, does allude some people -- though there actually there are few here than some other sites I could mention.

It's still common to hear, "Trust your (own) ears". To be sure, it's better to trust your own ears than some other guy's, but even our own ears need verification. This is most certainly true when it comes to auditioning for smalll changes, including cables of all sorts, tubes, opamps, fancy fuses, and the numerous tweaks that are out there. If objective measures don't work one ought to look for a general consensus pertaining to a component -- on the other had too broad a consensus can be just a self-reenforcing pop trend.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that these items can't or don't make a difference, only that the differences are small and it is easy to delude ourselves regarding their efficacy. (The tweak category certainly includes the astonishing items purveyed by Machina Dynamic, (here (http://www.machinadynamica.com/index.html)) -- let me assure you people actually buy this stuff and insist it makes a difference. What away to earn a living though; why didn't we think of it?)

[StevenSurprenant]

First off, I'd like to comment on the hearing loss of the elderly (since it was brought up in a previous reply). For most, if not all, that is a fact of life. The real question is, "how does that affect a persons ability to hear". I don't have the answer to that question, but I can relate a story to you that sheds some light on it...

My mom, when she was about 70, had severe hearing loss and so bought hearing aids for both ears. She could still hear without them, but she was constantly complaining that she had trouble hearing people speak. She decided that the physical discomfort of wearing them wasn't worth it so she never used them. I suspect that her hearing loss was fairly advanced because she would watch TV with closed caption on. With that said... She came to visit me. I was watching a movie at the time and the sound was coming from my Quad ESL's. She sat on the couch and after about 10 minutes, remarked to me, "It sounds just like a movie theater, only a lot clearer!". Now think about that... "...only a lot clearer!" This statement came from a woman with pronounced hearing loss. How was this possible?

Apparently, the ability to hear transcends a persons ability to hear the full range of frequencies.

In case you were wondering... No, she wasn't wearing her hearing aids, and No, I wasn't playing the movie very loud.

[Feanor]

...
Apparently, the ability to hear transcends a persons ability to hear the full range of frequencies.
...
I believe this for sure. I'm pretty old, (66), but I've had limited high frequency hearing for at least a decade. On top of that, I experience continuous tinnitis.

I hear nothing about 10 kHz, stone deaf for the top octave. I've had relatively limited frequency range for a long time but I'm not sure how much for how long since I wasn't tested. As for the tinnitis, I've had that for over 40 years. It is continuous in both ears, but a little stronger in the left. It has gotten a little bit worse in recent years.

Notwithstanding these auditory handicaps, I can hear subtle differences in components. Well OK, I don't hear much difference in case of power cords.

[hifitommy]

fean,

i am one ytear older than you and do of course have high freq hearing loss but still can discern differences in components and wire. most of my wquip has captive power cables but one day, i intend to experiment with power cables as to sound diffs.

that will wait until i have iec equipped electronics. too many reviewers that i respect cant hear the diffs and i am open to the information when it presents itself to me in person. i have not been privy to demos of that type.

[Feanor]

fean,

i am one ytear older than you and do of course have high freq hearing loss but still can discern differences in components and wire. most of my wquip has captive power cables but one day, i intend to experiment with power cables as to sound diffs.

that will wait until i have iec equipped electronics. too many reviewers that i respect cant hear the diffs and i am open to the information when it presents itself to me in person. i have not been privy to demos of that type.
HFT, as I've allowed on many many occassions I'm a cable skeptic and intend to stay that way.

Again, I'm not saying that cables can't sound different, only that differences are typically very small, and that expensive cables don't represent good value for people (like me) with entry- to mid-level systems who would be better off putting the money towards better components.

[hifitommy]

hi fean,

i respect the skepticism, a also am wary of some things that dont seem to make sense such as premium power cables (pangea makes very affordable items).

the same for interconnects and speaker wire but once you hear the difference that talks to you, you figure out something.

the paint job on a chevy is more than adequate for most of us but the paint on a ferrari or lamborghini, or bentley is another ball of wax.

if you have read many of my posts related to this subject, you will see that i dont recommend that big dollars be spent here in this area UNLESS really big ones have been spent on the rest of the system. when someone has soulution electronics and magico speakers, ratshack wire just wont do.

i love getting great sound from low priced components and many of my pieces are cost effective in spades and some not.

my best wires were either won at the audio society meeting or i got for a song by being in the right place at the right time.